Subject: Re: A few here may have an opinion on this
From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:04:22 +0100

> free software has been an utter failure at 
> producing large profitable businesses that 
> generate tax revenue.

Can you be more specific ?  Is the purpose of the economy to generate
tax revenue.
   In other words, you are against the GPL and more generally against
commons because you want more money and riches collected by the
government.

   That is the most outrageously inconsistent statement I ever heard
on this topic: "I am against commons because they deprive the
government"

   or maybe you meant : "I am against commons because they deprive the
public" ...  which is even more of a contradiction.

  I probably misunderstand something ...

Bernard

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:42:53PM +0000, chrismaeda@attbi.com wrote:
> Maybe I'm just in a grumpy mood but
> I think government tilting the playing field
> against GPL is perfectly reasonable. So far, 
> free software has been an utter failure at 
> producing large profitable businesses that 
> generate tax revenue.  Government legislating
> in favor of GPL will push more of the software
> business into the non-profit sector and make
> us all poorer.
> 
> > On Wednesday, Oct 23, 2002, at 11:55 US/Pacific, Benjamin J. Tilly 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Benjamin J. Tilly  wrote:
> > >>> http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/02/10/23/1247236.shtml?tid=4
> > >>>
> > >>> A Washington State senator is trying to make it government
> > >>> policy to not support research that produces GPLed
> > >>> software...
> > >>
> > >> Everyone knows my biases, but I think there's a pretty reasonable 
> > >> point
> > >> here.  A "university" license would, in my opinion, be the most
> > >> appropriate license for government-funded software to be released 
> > >> under.
> > >>
> > > This movement is specifically aimed at keeping the
> > > government from distributing things like its security
> > > enhancements for the Linux kernel.
> > 
> > You raise a very good point that I hadn't seen the first time around.
> > 
> > In general I agree with Brian's point (I prefer GPL but I'm OK with the 
> > gov't using BSD instead).
> > 
> > But the gov't pays companies (Lockheed, SAIC, IBM, MS) to modify their 
> > proprietary software for gov't requirements; those changes end up as 
> > part of the vendor's offering (generally such changes wouldn't make 
> > sense on their own).  Likewise the gov't needs the ability to make 
> > changes, or contract for changes, to GPL software as with your example. 
> >   Such changes _can't_ be released under the BSD license -- it would be 
> > prohibited by the GPL.
> > 
> > So this appears to be reasonable, but really does suck.
> > 
> > Yet another in a furious attempt by the government to shift software 
> > development offshore.  I guess in five years' time we'll have direct 
> > government subsidy to the software industry, as happens in other sunset 
> > industries like steel.
> > 
> > -g
> > 

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX