Forum unknown
· SoftwareDevelopment
#Why NO p.d.?
7 messages in this thread
So hey — why doesn't U.K. LeGuin give her novels away?
Perhaps some people think they're worth something. It would be in the
interest of *Amiga/Commodore* to "give" some software away with the machine
— as they already have -but that's like saying GM "gives" you four tires
with the car you just bought. There's a difference between bundling software
with a machine to sell the machine, and literally giving software away. In
fact, it is a legitimate practice in some limited instances to "give" a
sample of a product away as a "loss leader" — a common and well understand
practice.
Witness Electronic Arts' Polyscope demo. Well done and a limited version —
intended to entice people to *buy* their wares later on. Now that is another
thing entirely and is perfectly capitalistic. What I argue against is the
morality behind *all* software being "free" — an impossible idea, just as
impossible as any oter "free" commodity. As long as such ideas prevail, the
world will continue its downward descent to the next dark ages as the bloody
muck of altruism and its political consequent of statism (i.e., legalized
slavery) in the form of communism, socialism, the welfare state, Nazism, etc.
In short, I reject the morality of self-sacrifice and the premise that it
is the duty of any human being to give up his life and his work to others for
their so-called benefit. Any civilization that attempts implementing such a
morality will end up getting what it deserves — Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini,
Khadaffi, Gary Hart, etc. ad nauseaum.
I in no way suggested that all software should be given away for free. I
suggest, as I said before, that it is an author's premise to distribute his
software as he sees fit; that may be on a purely altruistic basis or on what he
sees as ultimately benefitting himself to the maximum degree. But the concept
of imposed Capitalism is just as restricting to me as would be the various
personal freedoms that suffer under some of the other varied philosophies you
mentioned, such as Nazism or any monarchy, socialism, or communism (NOT to be
confused with the Soviet social system).
"Should" is a moral concept and as such morality applies to it. You can
cut your throat if you want; should you? As a general rule, one should not,
although one can.
Your last sentence is a dead giveaway to your politics, though. The last
gasp of altruism/socialism/communism is the proclamation by its advocates
that "Soviet Russia isn't *really* true communism, and my gang would do it
better." Horse-feathers. Soviet russia is the embodiment of altruism, the
ideal itself is utterly corrupt and evil, as Russia has shown. I can't give
the totality of the many reasons for this view, but interested persons should
read 'Atlas Shrugged' for a complete treatment.
"Should" is a moral concept and as such morality applies to it. You can
cut your throat if you want; should you? As a general rule, one should not,
although one can.
Your last sentence is a dead giveaway to your politics, though. The last
gasp of altruism/socialism/communism is the proclamation by its advocates
that "Soviet Russia isn't *really* true communism, and my gang would do it
better." Horse-feathers. Soviet russia is the embodiment of altruism, the
ideal itself is utterly corrupt and evil, as Russia has shown. I can't give
the totality of the many reasons for this view, but interested persons should
read 'Atlas Shrugged' for a complete treatment.
I in no way suggested that all software should be given away for free. I
suggest, as I said before, that it is an author's premise to distribute his
software as he sees fit; that may be on a purely altruistic basis or on what he
sees as ultimately benefitting himself to the maximum degree. But the concept
of imposed Capitalism is just as restricting to me as would be the various
personal freedoms that suffer under some of the other varied philosophies you
mentioned, such as Nazism or any monarchy, socialism, or communism (NOT to be
confused with the Soviet social system).
Gee – all of this philosophy just because there is a good teminal program
available for free. Gee. Does all this mean that if you use a
compiler/assembler/editor/linker to make your programs, that you feel morally
obligated to give the compiler etc. writers a percentage of your program? Or
do you reap the benefits of their non-licensing largesse for a one-time
purchase fee?
There are likely to be significant free software available for the Amiga –
made by people who have a high degree of self-respect and motivated by a
desire to make the world a better place. Personally speaking, I would rather
get GNU et al. for free and attempt to *repay* the generosity of folks like
this by returning my own humble contributions.
This seems to be completely understandable in terms of your obsession with
profit/morality etc.
Let me put it this way – if I were to write a program, say a compiler and
make it available for free, and someone else were to use that compiler to
produce what is, for me, a useful and exciting program, also for *free* then
I would consider myself well paid.
.
You should also read your history books. While many of the people you clump
together are indeed rather unappetizing sorts, they have very little in
common with each other, and absolutely nothing in common with free software.
Hitler, in particular, appealed to the small buisinessman, i.e. the "little
guys" which seem to be the same people Rand appeals to. Now, can we get back
to talking about computers?? SDB
Gee – all of this philosophy just because there is a good teminal program
available for free. Gee. Does all this mean that if you use a
compiler/assembler/editor/linker to make your programs, that you feel morally
obligated to give the compiler etc. writers a percentage of your program? Or
do you reap the benefits of their non-licensing largesse for a one-time
purchase fee?
There are likely to be significant free software available for the Amiga –
made by people who have a high degree of self-respect and motivated by a
desire to make the world a better place. Personally speaking, I would rather
get GNU et al. for free and attempt to *repay* the generosity of folks like
this by returning my own humble contributions.
This seems to be completely understandable in terms of your obsession with
profit/morality etc.
Let me put it this way – if I were to write a program, say a compiler and
make it available for free, and someone else were to use that compiler to
produce what is, for me, a useful and exciting program, also for *free* then
I would consider myself well paid.
.
You should also read your history books. While many of the people you clump
together are indeed rather unappetizing sorts, they have very little in
common with each other, and absolutely nothing in common with free software.
Hitler, in particular, appealed to the small buisinessman, i.e. the "little
guys" which seem to be the same people Rand appeals to. Now, can we get back
to talking about computers?? SDB