Subject: Re: Ransom GPL Licensing: ethically and legally viable?
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:30:47 +0900

 Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:30:47 +0900
>>>>> "kms" == Karsten M Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:

    kms> Let's pass an Act of $NATIONA LEGISLATURE to ensure the
    kms> continued survival of the buggy whip industry while we're at
    kms> it, no?

íNo!  Either software is different from buggy whips in  exactly  the
ways that make your analogy nonsense, or free software is a bad trip
and we all need to go cold turkey.

I agree with you that "independent FSBs" are not obviously necessary
to promote free software, but let's not pull in invalid red herrings.
The arguments for treating free software as a pure public good are
reasonably strong, in which case some form of public support may be
indicated.  (Pace, Russ; it's an argument intended to appeal to
Karsten, not to you. ;-)

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.