Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Bruce Perens and world table

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> benefitting the general public 

Hey dak, care to address the following (2nd one below) Dan's comment 
regarding the "public"?

http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/an-open-source-ceo-on-the-gplv3/#comments

------
      Crosbie Fitch // Oct 18th 2006 at 4:03 am

      If you change ‘restrictions’ into ‘protections’ you can see where
the agenda is.

      The only people upset by more protections (of the public’s
freedom) appearing in the GPL are those who would like to take the
public’s freedom away.

      Free software liberates the public to enjoy published GPL
software. The ‘P’ stands for public. Published GPL software belongs to
the public, and they shall not be restricted.

      If you want to control your own GPL software, don’t publish it. If
you still believe in copyright and want to restrict the public’s use of
the non-free software that you publish, well, just use the magic sigil
(C) with no license.

      Dan Lyons // Oct 18th 2006 at 9:08 am

      Well in your zeal to “protect” the public you are threatening to
screw up an operating system that some of us members of the “public”
enjoy. And the “public” doesn’t own this code — if we did you guys
couldn’t jerk everyone around. The code is owned and controlled by RMS,
who has convinced developers (thank God not Linus Torvalds) to sign over
their copyright to him. That’s not “public” ownership. That’s RMS
“hoarding” code and then demanding a price for it (by dictating the way
others behave). In other words, it’s exactly the behavior that RMS rails
against in others. I can’t believe you need to have this explained to
you. (I suspect that you don’t need it explained.)

      Anyway, as for making life even more difficult for Linux
distributors, hey, fantastic work, dude. Which “public” are you
protecting? Face it, this has nothing to do with the “public,” since 95%
of “the public” are happy with Windows and 3% more are happy with Macs.
This is about the “public” as defined by RMS and a few others. This has
to do with the narrow agenda of a few radicals led by RMS, with the
ultimate goal of creating a world where all software can be freely
copied. In such a world companies could not make money selling software.
Fair enough; that’s what RMS is after. Why do you guys never dare say
this? It’s in the GNU Manifesto. But you always have to play this coy
doublespeak game about how you’re actually pro-business and
pro-capitalism. Please. If you want to play Che Guevara and embrace an
anti-private property agenda, at least have the courage to admit it.

      What’s next? Will you protest outside bookstores because those
poor books are being held “prisoner” on the shelves, penned up and kept
in cardboard boxes in dank warehouses? Set the books free! The “public”
has a right to free books! The “public” also has a right to free movies,
and free music! End the tyranny of Blockbuster movie “prisons,” and
shopping mall music stores, holding discs captive! Storm the Virgin
Megastore! And restaurants! Chefs are keeping recipes to themselves!
Free the recipes! Free the ingredients! It is a crime against humanity
to hoard food in restaurant kitchens while the “public” is hungry! Chefs
are making obscene amounts of money by hoarding food and charging high
prices for meals. But they cannot help their neighbors! Free the
carrots! Free the steaks! (Of course you can’t do this because RMS
didn’t create these books, movies, music or recipes; and he hasn’t
convinced any authors, musicians, filmmakers or chefs to sign their
rights over to him.)

      Oh, but you’re all about “protecting” the “public.” You’re the
heroes of the people. And all those new open-source companies like
ActiveGrid, Zimbra, and so on, who won’t touch the GPL with a 10-foot
pole, they’re just “evil” and “enemies of freedom” and “out to hurt the
public.” Is that it? Dude, you guys are absolutely full of
you-know-what.
------

regards,
alexander.