Re: bias...

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Brett Glass wrote:

> At 12:15 PM 6/4/2002, Marco Pietrobono wrote:
> 
> >  nobody is forced to use a *GPL codebase. 
> 
> The FSF has stated many times that it wants developers -- and
> governments -- to be forced to use GPLed code, and has actually
> been attempting to get this legislated in some countries.

That's my main concern about the GPL.  It's designed to smother proprietary 
software completely.  That's the intent.  I'm not sure I'm ready to go to 
the extreme of saying that proprietary software should not even exist just 
because some proprietary software vendors have abused their customers and 
the industry.  I abhor the notion of an all-Microsoft world, but I'm not 
convinced that an all-GPL world would be the utopia Stallman suggests...

> Also, the presence of GPLed code, because it destroys markets
> for commercial products, has led in many cases to a situation
> in which one *is* forced to use it. There can be no financial 
> reward for developing an alternative -- even a superior one --
> because so long as the GPLed code is even marginally adequate
> a sufficient number of customers will not buy a product for which 
> they must pay. This is what is happening now with GCC. It is,
> on most existing platforms and virtually all new architectures,
> preventing the development of commercial compilers. And this
> despite the fact that it is, at best, mediocre.

I have no idea what's happening with GCC or the compiler market, but in 
general, this is the potential danger of an all-GPL world.  Like Communism, 
it might sound good on paper, but I'm not convinced it would work so well 
in practice.  Non-viral copyleft licenses like the MPL don't worry me at 
all, because they only demand back changes to the same codebase, not every 
bit of code that touches it.

> >If you don't want to play that game, you can always
> >find another game to play.
> 
> In other words, we should allow the GPL to force programmers
> to abandon their chosen profession? I don't know about you, but 
> I don't believe that it is ethical or moral for the FSF to be able 
> to dictate what people do for a living or to destroy their 
> livelihoods due to one man's 20-year-old grudge.

I find it ironic that Stallman suggests that programmers should be 
satisfied with the median U.S. family income of $35,000 because we enjoy 
programming, and that's good enough for most jobs that people don't enjoy.

When Stallman still had to support himself, did he work for that kind of 
pay?  That would be $17.50/hour -- $35/hour by normal standards as a 
consulting fee vs. fulltime employment.  So, did he do custom work for 
$35/hour or less?  Not to my knowledge -- all reports I've heard estimate 
that he used to charge $200/hour or more (some estimates went as high as 
$300-350/hour), and this was back in the 80's, so inflation should be 
considered as well.  Stallman also demanded (of course) that the code he 
wrote for such consulting gigs be placed under the GPL.  No surprise there.

Brett, you don't seem to be popular around here, but I have to agree with 
you on this one -- it seems highly hypocritical of Stallman to charge such 
premium rates on the one hand, and insist that programmers shouldn't expect 
above-average incomes on the other hand.  Seems like he's not practicing 
what he preaches, yet he remains completely unconcerned about the potential 
for the GPL to decimate the programming profession and turn is all into 
wage slaves.  Programmers might even be forced to search for jobs unrelated 
to computers, if there's not enough programming work available.

No matter how pure Stallman's motives may be, this is suspicious.  Maybe 
Stallman doesn't see the danger, or maybe he just doesn't care.  He seems 
to be a dilettante able to spend his life devoted to Free Software, first 
because this highly-valued profession allowed him to charge premium rates 
to support himself with little effort, and ultimately because of the grant 
he received which allowed him to discontinue even the occasional consulting 
work that he used to need to support himself.

Now, Stallman wants the rest of us to devote ourselves to free software as 
well, and not be concerned about earning a living?  You know, I'd love to 
spend my days working on free software, but like most programmers in the 
real world, I have to work for a living.  I can't live off grant money, and 
neither can most programmers.  And if proprietary software gets snuffed out 
by GPL'd software (as Stallman fervently wishes), who will pay programmers 
to write new code?  I don't see a sustainable economic model here. :-(

I like the idea of abundant free software.  I worry about the extinguishing 
of programming as a profession.  There are so many GPL zealots unwilling to 
consider the ramifications of Stallman's vision, that I have to be cautious 
about supporting the GPL license.  There was a time when I also wanted to 
see everything be under the GPL.  Later, reality set in, and I realized 
that achieving that goal could lead to disaster.

How can we support the GPL and still prevent such disaster?

Deven