Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Lyons: "Toppling Linux"

[Alexander Terekhov]

http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2006/1030/104.html

LOL.

Man, but this is even better:

http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board/message?board.id=stallmanreaction&message.id=4

----------
Ignorance and initial assumptions       
rschott
Newbie
Posts: 4
Registered: 10-14-2006

rschott

        This writer obviously is ignorant of the GNU/Linux history. It is
acceptable to be unaware of a topic, but it should be unacceptable to be
unaware of a topic that one is writing about. He also takes some initial
assumptions that everything can be owned, money should own it, without
money, there is no possibility of owning something.

Is it anti-capitalistic to believe that some things cannot be owned?

Stallman just simply believes that Ideas cannot be owned, and in this he
is a visionary. Once upon a time, it was considered that money had a
right to own people. Slavery is part of a "Ownership Society," is it
not? Today our society no longer believes that slavery is appropriate.
Does that make our society anti-capitalistic?

Stallman shared his work, the gcc compiler, the file utilities, the
emacs editor, all things that made the linux kernel possible. When he
did so, he did not request money, he requested freedom. Now companies
want to make great profits off of his work. Stallman allows that. What
he does not allow, is for companies to create artificial barriers to
entry. Are the creation of artificial barriers to entry "capitalistic"?

Companies make use of the GNU/Linux operating system because of cost!
What accountants, market analysts, and CEO's do not understand, is that
the cost is still there. The cost is the fact that they will not have
their artificial barriers to entry. It is not their kernel. It is not
their compiler. It is not their file utilities. Anyone else can use it
and provide that service. THEY HAVE TO COMPETE! On a fair and level
playing ground. They do not like that.

Since this writer chose to throw political epithets at Stallman, I will
now follow up with some of my own. He is a corporate feudal serf. He
should give over is wife to his corporate feudal lords, as was customary
in feudal society. It is their right!
Corporations are not "evil", but for the sake of profit, they are
willing to do anything sometimes. This country chose freedom over
communism right? Stallman wants to ensure our freedoms. A billion
dollars thrown at something does not buy IBM nor Redhat the software
that has not been sold to them. This software was given to them with
certain restrictions. The restriction that they were not to try to steal
others freedoms, and since they choose to find other ways around that
restriction, by using mythological "Intellectual Property" rights to try
to create further restrictions upon the freedoms of their users, given
to them by Stallman, then he has every right to try to put an end to the
practice.

A corporations "value" is not in its "Intellectual Property", its in the
"Intellectual Capabilities" of the people they financially reward for
their service. Copyright, Trademarks, and Patents are not "Intellectual
Property".

Linux is but a Kernel. There are others, BSD for example. One small
piece of a full OS that users have come to expect. There are window
systems (No Microsoft does not own that idea, even though they like to
think that they do. X-Windows, Apple/Macintosh/, Amigas all beat them to
that technological advance way before their "Windows Revolution" in the
early 90's. X-Windows was around in the 70's), File systems, Compilers,
API's...

I choose FREEDOM sir. You cannot buy my freedom by buying some stock.
Sorry!

This Post is copyright and licensed under the GNU FDL. Display of this
post constitutes acceptance of its terms.
---------

LOL.

regards,
alexander.