Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: [discuss] Open source software News

[Ralph Janke]

Timothy Baldwin wrote:

> On Saturday 13 March 2004 07:55, Tom Yates wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Not only are GPL and Crown Copyright *not* self-contradictory, copyright
> > is required in order for the GPL to apply.
> >
> > I don't want to seem deliberately picky, but I think it's worth making the
> > point that free software licences *require* a working copyright system in
> > order to function.
> >    
>
> But Free Software licences are only needed whilst a significant proportion of 
> software producers want to restrict our freedoms, they have the means to do 
> so (eg copyright law, contracts, and patents), and there is nothing stopping 
> them doing so (eg a copyleft law).
>
>  
The right to produce free software is imho a human rights issue, even it 
is currently not part of the Convention. IT has
nothing to do with the software producers. They can produce as much as 
they want software with licenses they wish.

Copyright does not prevent anything here. The problem are software patents.

> > A lot of people, particularly laymen, misunderstand 
> > that point and I think that's one of the most common causes of the
> > accusation of "socialism" that we seem to have to defend against on a
> > regular basis.
> >    
>
> Free software is socialistic, being the abolition of property relations over 
> computer software,  For a lengthy argument see 
> http://www.oekonux.org/texts/marketrelations.html
>
>  
Free software has nothing to do with socialism. Free software is about 
freedom (btw. socialism is one
of the biggest push for restricting individual freedom for the good of  
all of society (the theory) in practice
burocrats misusing the system for their own gain).

Free software is about capitalism. It is a different business model that 
is willing to compete with the current one. IT is about
voluntarism. People producing something with their talents and skills 
that helps others. Free sofware has a lot of
facets in the greater concept of community and society. It is about the 
individual's choice. Not about a system telling people what to do.

I can very well understand that Marxist's are grapping for every straw 
since their ideas aren't fining any fans any more. However, this article 
distorts
a lot of realities. Free software is not, outside the market as they 
say, because their is an exchange of value contrary to their opinion.
The exchange is just indirect and not direct.

Linus Thorvalt did not get any money for writing his Linux kernel. 
However, he created a value concerning his own person and reputation. If 
you write
free software, and your software is used by people, you will be known 
because you are the author. You create a market value of yourself, 
because people
know what you can do. You are the expert in regards to the software. You 
can sell support, because it takes longer for people to fix a problem 
with their knowledge
than it takes you. That makes it at the end cheaper for them to pay you 
then to try to do it themselves. There are lots of different ways you can
benefit financially, or experiencewise from writing free software. All 
of it is in the market, not outside the market.

However, I believe that free software is a somewhat bourgeois 
revolution. Free software puts common market structures and their 
principles in question. It proposes a new way of doing things. It is a 
rebellion against a status-quo that has created a lot of dissatisfaction 
(The software crisis was already described since the early 1970s and is 
today probably worse than it was in those days). However, it is also an 
intellectual movement for liberty and independence as the French 
revolution was. I also believe the free software movement is a somewhat 
political movement. It creates a situtation where the current political 
system fells threatened because they fear loosing control over it.

That are my 2 cents anyway