On Saturday 05 April 2008, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 09:39:00PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote: > > as RMS would in saying closed source is unethical. I also have to > > wonder if he would have the same stance if, when he started that > > crusade, he weren't at a university, but had to make a living and > > pay the bills and pay for junior's food by programming at a company > > that made money on software. > > "I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure or software license > agreement" > > "Restricting copying is not the only means for making a profit in > software development." > > "There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to > maximise one's income, as long as one does not use means that are > destructive. But the means customarily used in the area of software > development today are based on destruction. Extracting money from > users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive > because the restrictions reduce the amount that and the ways in which > the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that > humanity derives from a program. When there is a deliberate choice to > restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction. The > reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become > wealthier is because, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer > from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics, or, the > Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if > everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for > one person to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for > one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of > all or part of that creativity." > > The paragraphs above are snippets from "The Gnu Manifesto" by > Richard Stallman. in Dr. Dobb's Journal #101 March 1985. pp 30-34[1] > (I wonder if its worth anything -- offers by private mail welcome.) > > So, yes of course he would still have the same stance, it would all > depend on the ethics of the "company that made money on software." > Hopefully, these days, no one is *forced* into working for a company > which goes against their ethics.
I don't see how anyone can be so sure. That is the stand of someone not backed into a corner and someone who lived under conditions most of us are never lucky enough to experience. That's my point. It's easy to have such high morals and ethics when one has spent most of one's live in an Ivory Tower. It's been said that his main social engagements were in his interest in folk dancing and when he hurt his knee he had to stop that and changed his focus completely to programming. Until he started the GNU foundation, he had basically spent his life as a student or faculty member, meaning he was in a world completely different than the one most of us live in. The politics are different and the motivations are different. I've known many people that can excel in a university environment who cannot do well once they graduate and seek a job away from academia. I know I, and many people I've known, had one set of morals while in college, but had different views after a few years of working in the "real" world. Considering that RMS has never actually worked in the real world, I asked that question. His statements speak for his views, but the question is if he could have held to those views and would have if he had to face the same reality most of us have to face in terms of having a job in the corporate world. Hal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
