Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Paula Paul" <Paula AT PaulSoftware.com>]

I don't get it....

I thought I was already free to write any kind of software that I choose
to write.  I can write code for the Apache Software Foundation, IBM, or
Microsoft, or for some hardware device I hack together in my garage...
what's to stop me?

The Free Software Foundation sounds more restrictive of my freedom than
anything Microsoft has ever done to me.  Although there are plenty of
things Microsoft does that I *don't* like, at least they don't
completely dictate my business model if I choose to make my living as a
'Commercial Software' provider.  For instance, if I develop some fancy
XSL Transform using Microsoft tools, I have the choice of giving my code
away, or licensing it as shareware or as a proprietary product.  I can
also choose to sell support contracts, or not.

The 'Free' Software Foundation absolutely dictates the business model.
Anyone can write 'commercial software', as long as you don't restrict or
charge fees for redistribution.  Oh, if you want to make a *living* as a
software developer, you can still do so by selling service contracts, as
they state:

"For example, GNU Ada is always distributed under the terms of the GNU
GPL, and every copy is free software; but its developers sell support
contracts."

Forgive me for being politically incorrect, but the Free Software
Foundation sounds like Animal Farm in the making (some software is more
free than others!).  Call me a capitalist, but I'd like to remain a
professional, paid, software developer, and want to retain the choice of
licensing my work when I want to and however I want to.  

Don't get me wrong - I think there are many many things wrong with the
status quo in technology, but telling me as a software author I should
never license my work (the actual source code, not 'service contracts')
seems ridiculous.  Can anyone name another industry or product that
works this way?  Music - no, literature - no, movies - no.  I think the
'free speech' analogy they use is poor, because anyone can copyright
their published speech (or their web site content).  So we can already
'speak' freely in C++ as much as we want, but why shouldn't I be able to
copyright the electronic copies of my source code and develop
'proprietary' products if I want to?

I think of software authors in two ways: 1) Mercenary / Business - code
is an asset that has value and can be sold to make money.  2) Artist -
code is a beautiful intellectual expression and should be free like the
air we breathe.
As things stand today, I can be either type of author (some people can
actually be both).  I like having that choice.

I guess maybe I'm a dinosaur too, but it does pay the rent.  If someone
out there can explain to me why I should _always_ let people copy and
distribute the software I write for free, even though no other
intellectual assets are distributed that way, I'd like to hear more,
because I just don't get it.  Is The Free Software Foundation really
more about making software into a pure service industry and turning
source code into a commodity?  This doesn't seem like something that
would benefit independent software authors who write software for a
living.  

If Matthew Szulik ever reads this list, sorry Matthew! (I worked with
Matthew a long time ago in a land far away, and always hate to disagree
with him).

Feel free to turn on your flame-throwers,
Paula