--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 06:52:45PM +1200, cr wrote: > On Wednesday 20 August 2003 07:14, Bijan Soleymani wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:27:03PM +0100, iain d broadfoot wrote: > > > * Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 08:43:21AM +0100, Mark wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:33:03PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote: > > > > > > This makes a lot of sense. I mean if the FSF hired you to write= a > > > > > > GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary > > > > > > version of it after you quit working for them. > > > > > > > > > > Why would they care? They would have their GPLed version, if you > > > > > choose to write a closed version, that's your choice. > > > > > > > > If they didn't care about closed version they wouldn't use the GPL. > > > > > > This is broken logic. > > > > > > The FSF would have nothing to lose from a closed version of a GPL pie= ce > > > of software being developed. > > > > It's not nothing. Let's say half the users use the FSF/GPL version and > > half use the closed version. The FSF has just lost half its users. By > > the FSF's theory half the users have lost their freedom. >=20 > No, they've chosen (for some presumably good reason) to use the 'closed'= =20 > version. They still have the freedom to choose. =20 >=20 > The most you can say is, by using non-'free', they're helping (financiall= y)=20 > the 'closed' version and reducing the user base of the 'free' version. = That=20 > doesn't matter much so long as the versions remain compatible. =20 > If it's M$ doing the 'closed' version, of course, we know what would happ= en -=20 > copyrighted non-free 'features' get added, after which they try to squeez= e=20 > the free version out. OTOH, if it's a company with the slightest degre= e of=20 > ethics, then the two versions could offer a wider choice to users. =20 I don't know really. I think Microsoft is representative of the proprietary software industry. Maybe some companies are better than others, but it simply makes sense that a company would "try to squeeze the free version out". Companies are out to make money, if their business is proprietary software, a compatible Free Software version of the program is not very good for business. Bijan --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/Q5epUof+95vTyAwRAho1AJ0XPLSGtmN4Tc5jLlFCwYlveXkNQACfW2qz kyS+2VWZxsALvERRkoFCC3E= =NNoo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
