"Nowhere in the hundreds of pages of GNU and FSF literature is there any serious explanation of why it is legitimate, for example, to make a living selling cauliflowers, or lectures (as a professor does), or videotapes of your lectures, but criminal to peddle software that you have produced by working long hours, sweating your heart out, thinking brilliantly, and risking your livelihood and that of your family."
There really is little difference between selling software and cauliflower. The difference is that when you buy cauliflower at the grocery store, the grower doesn't ask you to accept an agreement that states you will not share the cauliflower with your neighbor, or modify it in any way such as cutting it, mixing it with other vegetables, or adding anyting to it (such as dip, cheese, etc...) , nor do they forbid you from growing the exact same cauliflower yourself, whereas these are the things commercial software companies do forbid you to do. You've paid for it, but you don't have the rights to use it however you want. The reason we have economic laws in our society is so that consumers are benefitted. How, I ask, are consumers benefitted when they rightfully pay money in exchange for goods, but are not able to use the goods however they see fit. So the ethical dilemma doesn't have to do with selling software for profit. It's not really an ethical dilemma at all. It's a matter of having the rights to your personal property.
Slashdot Mirror
"Nowhere in the hundreds of pages of GNU and FSF literature is there any serious explanation of why it is legitimate, for example, to make a living selling cauliflowers, or lectures (as a professor does), or videotapes of your lectures, but criminal to peddle software that you have produced by working long hours, sweating your heart out, thinking brilliantly, and risking your livelihood and that of your family."
There really is little difference between selling software and cauliflower. The difference is that when you buy cauliflower at the grocery store, the grower doesn't ask you to accept an agreement that states you will not share the cauliflower with your neighbor, or modify it in any way such as cutting it, mixing it with other vegetables, or adding anyting to it (such as dip, cheese, etc...) , nor do they forbid you from growing the exact same cauliflower yourself, whereas these are the things commercial software companies do forbid you to do. You've paid for it, but you don't have the rights to use it however you want. The reason we have economic laws in our society is so that consumers are benefitted. How, I ask, are consumers benefitted when they rightfully pay money in exchange for goods, but are not able to use the goods however they see fit. So the ethical dilemma doesn't have to do with selling software for profit. It's not really an ethical dilemma at all. It's a matter of having the rights to your personal property.