Re: [Marxism] Alternatives to Microsoft's Internet Explorer

[Intense Red <intnsred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   As someone who has worked for multiple commercial software companies, been
a registered developer of Debian GNU/Linux, runs support web sites for free
software, and has worked with free software since the early 90s, I think
there's a few errors in this article that should be addressed.

 > First, and this is key -- open source programmers can _only_ compete
 > with alternative commercial OR noncommercial software packages by
 > offering a superior product.

   Certainly some free software products (e.g. Mozilla) are superior to their
commercial counterparts.  But that isn't a hard and fast rule.  It is not
unusual to find free software programs that are "unpolished" and geeky to
use, and/or which have poor documentation.

 > There are two main licenses, BSD and GNU.  BSD is similar, but not equal
 > to, a public domain license.  GNU is more restrictive, and essentially
 > allows all GNU-licensed software to be used for any purpose, but
 > guarantees that the software cannot be sold for profit and is extremely
 > anti-commercial (in ownership, but not usage) and communal.  Both more
 > or less guarantee that the software is and will remain, essentially,
 > communal property.

   There are major errors here.  (An aside, a nice overview of "free software"
from a licensing perspective can be found at
<http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>.)

   The "GNU" license is called the General Public License (GPL)
<http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html>.  GPL software *can* be resold.
GNU/Linux, for example, is licensed under the GPL and there are Linux
companies with market caps in the billions.

   The GPL requires that if someone sells software that the seller also *has*
to make the source code to the program(s) available.  The purchaser is then
allowed under the GPL to modify the program and can give or sell your
modifications to other people.

   The main "restriction" of the GPL is that it has a clause which guarantees
the "future freedom" of software.  This means that if you take a program
licensed under the GPL and modify it or extend the program, you have to
license your modifications under the GPL (the so-called "viral effect" -- the
license spreads like a virus).  This is to prevent someone from modifying a
program and making it proprietary/secret.

   Free software programs do not have to remain essentially communal property
if they are licensed under the BSD license.  The BSD license allows someone
to take a program, modify it, and then to keep those modifications secret and
proprietary.  One can then sell the software just like any other commercial
software.

   Microsoft, for example, uses *many* BSD-licensed modules and programming
libraries in their own commercial software.  They do not (that we know of)
use *any* GPL'ed modules in their own software since that would require them
to open up other portions of their software.

   From an anti-intellectual-property standpoint, the GPL is clearly the
superior license.  This is why Microsoft executives have called the GPL
"un-American" and "communist".

 > * GIMP is a free, open source alternative to $$$Adobe Photoshop$$$
 > * OpenOffice is a free, compatable, open source alternative to MS Office

<http://www.gimp.org> and <http://www.openoffice.org>

   I agree with you fully here, these are two applications that really shine.
Having done a lot of work in educational technology, I'm particularly
saddened to see cash-strapped public schools wasting their money on Microsoft
Office or Photoshop when there are these free, functionally equivalent
alternatives which exist.

 In solidarity.

--
Our father, which art in Redmond, Monopoly be thy name
Thy empire come, thy OS never done, shipping as it is in development
Give us this day, our daily bug And forgive address violations
As we forgive those viruses that trespass against us
Lead us not unto competition but deliver us from Choice
For thine is the license, the revenue and the greed forever. Amen.


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism