RE: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

At 11:12 AM 6/12/02 +0200, Patrik Stridvall wrote:

> > > > In that sense the GPL is more democratic because EVERYONE
> > > > benefits and not
> > > > just a small priviledged minority.
> > > > I think the GPL is a good way to democratize technologie.
> > >
> > >Please don't use the word democratic. It has nothing to
> > >do that that all. If you mean fair say that.
> >
> > Ok, I know you are not a native english speaker, so I will paste the
> > definition from www.m-w.com:
> > One meaning of democratic is:
> > 3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad
> > masses of the people
> >
> > In this sense the GPL is democratic because by forcing you to
> > return the
> > improvements it ensures that they are available to the
> > masses. On the other
> > side you have proprietary software which is only available to
> > those who pay
> > for it.
> > An analogy would be subway x car.
>
>If you use that definition all private property are undemocratic.
>So the point is still please don't us the word. I (and I guess most

Ok, so now you want to tell me what words to use? :)

>other people) doesn't define democratic in that broad sense. So using
>the word, confuses more than help. Again please us other words.

Ok, since you already reminded me, that you are not a native english 
speaker I will remind you that the same is the case for me(and I never 
lived in an english speaking country btw). I used that word because it was 
the first to come to my mind, and I think it describes quite well what I 
wanted to say.

>Futhermore most democratic societies have voted to allow private property
>as well as intellectual property like copyright. So not making your
>code available to non-payers is explictly allowed.

Exactly. And the GPL also uses that right to make the code only available 
to those who will contribute back their changes.


> > Even in the US there are a lot of schools complaining about M$ new
> > licensing policies for which they don't have the money. For
> > many startup
> > companies it is a big burden to buy M$ software in order to
> > be compatible
> > with the rest of the world. I wonder how much money a company
> > could spare
> > if it only had to buy the hardware and get all software for
> > free. In this
> > sense the GPL could also be an economic booster!
>
>Please M$ == "Bad" doesn't imply that GPL == "Good".
>
>Open source in general might be a boost, true.
>But even if this indeed was true, it doesn't follow
>that the GPL is the best license.

I agree.