When I said they didn't care about "us" I meant the users of RedHat I'm a user of Red Hat. I transitioned happily to Fedora, like lots of others.
Am I not allowed to have an opinion if I didn't write emacs?
Of course. It's fine to complain. It's fine to be a free-loader.
Doing both, however, is rather tacky. Thinking Red Hat owes you anything is rather immature.
It's the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" bit.
And Red Hat has violated this how? Considering how many millions of dollars they have spent on developers, Q&A, and computer resources for Gcc, Gnome, the Linux kernel, NetworkManager, etc etc etc - and of course Fedora Core.
I apologize for not being familiar with your contributions to Gnu/Linux/Free Software. I'm assuming they're
noteworthy; otherwise you wouldn't have written what you wrote.
Re:Missing a Chapter
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm curious what "covenant" you imagine Red Hat broke.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
In fact such annotations would be necessary for any implementation because it would be impossible to perform any type analysis of distinct packages compiled with your compiler extensions because the type information only exists in the source code.
Yes - unless you put then in the class file, as I indicated.
i>The type system of "Java with Unsigned" is indeed broken when used on the JVM.
You mean the same way "C++ with unsigned" is broken?
This breaks the type system since from the JVM's perspective you're providing signed integers.
The latter does not imply the former. I agree that standard JVM reflection won't be able to distinguish between
signed and unsigned integers - though one could use annotations or some other mechanism so one could distinguish between signed and unisgned field and method types.
Also, "type system" usually refers to the system of static types, and that is not broken - just different from standard Java.
But I meant to say that it is not sufficient to flip the sign bit to make the corresponding positive/negative number.
I didn't say that. I said it suffices to flip the sign bit to compare two unsigned integers using signed integer comparisons:
(unsigned) X > (unsigned) Y
iff: (int) (X^0x80000000) > (int) (Y^0x80000000).
One option is to *represent* an unsigned int using a signed int, but generate code that simulates unsigned int arithmetic using signed int arithmetic.
Obviously, addition and subtraction are trivial:
unsigned_add(i,j) == (unsigned int) (signed_add((int)i, (int)j)
Other operations can be implemented by casting to long, though of course that begs the question of how you handle unsigned long.
Comparisons can be handled by flipping the sign bit. I.e. comparing two unsigned long (or int) can be done by flipping the sign bits, and then doing a signed comparison.
The only hard ones are multiplication and division. For those you could call suitable library methods.
It's ironic seeing an article decrying a market leader for restricting choice - published in a format which restricts web browser choice, presumably to the browser of another market leader.
The car is taxable income in the year you receive it, whether you sell it or not. So is the e-gold.
But it is valuable only within the context of the game/hobby.
A car has realized value in the real world. Of course the argument is that so does e-gold, since there is a real-world market for it. A difference is that you "produced" the e-gold, just like making a quilt, while you received the car.
It probably could be argued quite a bit, but the implications
of taxing in-game "gains" would be so scary that I doubt the IRS would want to go there.
If you play a game and get in-game "e-gold", and that e-gold has value outside the game (as it does in this case) then the IRS may well consider the e-gold taxable income in the amount it could be sold for in real world money - whether you actually ever sell it or not.
How is this different from making a quilt and not selling it? Clearly, if you sell game gold, it is taxable income. But game gold (like a quilt) is not taxable until you sell it.
I guess it might be "inventory" - I don't know what the rules are for that.
Now whether it is earned income or capital gains may be trickier, perhaps depending on how you acquired it.
As far as I know the IEEE will happily accept "techs". I always thought membership was open to anyone, but it's hard to verify that right now, as their server seems to be having problems.
I don't believe they do accreditation, though there has been talk about it.
The whole premise of the "Streamlined Sales Tax" agreement is that these rules will be a lot simpler and more uniform. How well it will work out in practice, we'll see. But the courts have made such tax simplification a pre-condition before states can require out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax.
This article (like all-too-many others) confuses energy and power (i.e. energy per unit of time). It's nonsense to talk about generating "10kW of power" "each time" something happens.
Agreed. When I right-click on a tab, I want an option to convert the tab to a new window. And I should be able to turn a window into a tab of another window. The latter is trickier, especially if you allow multiple applications in the same tab set. That implies tabs would be part of the window frame, and go above the application-specific menubar toolbar etc.
I.e. a window containing multiple tabs is logically multiple windows only one of which is visible at a time, and that are stacked on top of each other like a "deck".
I would expect the numbers to be far higher rather than only marginally higher/if/ being raised in an environment that is supportive of being gay
But they're not in such an environment.
The homophobia of relatives, neighbors, teachers, friends can be quite intense, if subtle. And there are subtle pressures for children
of gay parents to be or appear to be "straight":
Gay parents might be afraid of being accused of
corrupting their child, or being bad parents,
or have internalized homophobia of their own.
... is a/significant/ contributing factor to being gay.
It's difficult to measure who "is" gay. It's difficult even defining it; rhe numbers we have
are people who will say they are gay to a stranger.
That obviously is an under-count even of
people who consider themselves to be gay.
It's near-impossible to get a number of
those who "really" are gay, or would be in a
less homophobic (and generally sex-phobic) world.
Most modern studies put the percentage of gays in the general population at somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 100.
In the US more than 2% (of adult males at least) will describe themselves as primarily homosexual when asked by survey takers, exit polls, etc. (Sorry, no reference - just my memory of various figures.)
Given the many people in the closet and in denial
I think we can reasonably assume that the "real figure" is at least 2%. If you assumed
a society where people would be free to have
sex with and love whoever they want
(and as many as they want), it is not unreasonable
to guess the "real number" is at least 10%,
and almost certainly so if you include bisexuals-who-prefer-the-same-sex.
However, that is just a guess. The 2% figure
seems pretty conservative.
(I.e. I'm not disagreeing with you - just adding
some context.)
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
I think our fundamental differences lie in the purpose of corporation: I say they exist to make money, you say otherwise.
I say it's more complicated. More critically,
while the goal of a corporation is to
make money, society doesn't have a goal
that corporations (and certainly not any particular corporation) make as much money as possible,
only that there is a "healthy business climate".
There are more important things to discuss and concern ourselves with than software licenses.
Even Stallman agrees with this. There are more
important things wrong with the world than non-Free
software, abusive patents, and excessive copyright
restrictions/length. But that is what Stallman and
the FSF focuses on. Beware the trap of people who say "how can you be concerned about X when Y is going on". Even if Y is a worse ill than X, it is
good that there are people working on X as well,
as long as Y doesn't get ignored.
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Companies exist to make money, a critical point that often gets missed in these kinds of discussions.
Actually, that's often not the case. First,
some companies get started by people who are super-rich anyway, in which case the money is incidental. You don't think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates really care about making more money, except
perhaps to measure themselves against each other?
Secondly, lots of company decisions cannot be rationally justified in terms of making money, but
have their basis in ego, "not inhented here",
prestige, etc. Finally, whose money? Inflated
salaries at the top generally cannot be justified
by company profitability.
You want my business to become obsolete because I don't give away my code?
Yes, but I meant "product" (if it remains non-Free) rather than "company".
That's in the nature of competition. I don't
know your company's product, but I do hope that
non-Free products like Microsoft Office become
irrelevant. I hope that Free projecs can
out-compete the non-Free products,
in terms of features and quality. Even more so
I hope people and companies will come to value
and prefer Free Software because of its Freedom
(sharing, modifibility, freedom from lock-in,
interoperability, co-operation and less waste).
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My company writes closed source software that saves people & companies money over equivalent Microsoft solutions. I see that as benefiting humanity.
I don't dispute it. The interesting question is:
Could your company benefit hunanity more by going
the Free Software route, while still remaining profitable? I don't know the answer, but don't
rule it out.
open sourcing our product... could also hurt us as competitors (including Microsoft) would have complete access to our algorithms, trade secrets, and other proprietary software intricacies.
Ah, but you're the ones who have experience
with the code-base, and who have a working product
based on it. They're the ones that would have to
play catch-up to you. And if you use the GPL,
they could only use your code if their code was
also open. In which case, wouldn't you love
to be able to point out to customers this fact?
Yes, they could use your trade secrets and
algorithms (which are not covered by the GPL),
but if these are non-trivial they still have to
have somebody understand them and figure out
how to make use of them within their own technology. So they're at least a generation
behind you.
The competitive value of "trade secrets" is
mostly short-term. Once a product is out, then
the value of any secrets is usually minimal.
If going open source can negatively affect our bottom line, then the whole "help the world by sharing your code" line is totally irrelevant to us.
You realize what you're saying here? The
"bottom line" trumps all other considerations.
You and your company have no other goals than
to maximize profit, as long as you stay within
the law. I don't think you really mean this.
There are intangibles that are also valuable,
even to a public company: Public benefit can
increase company visibility and "goodwill".
It can increase visibility, professional recognition, and job satisfaction of employees.
Recognition as an industry leader may increase.
These can also help the bottom line, but in
more indirect ways.
If giving our code away means losing dollars, our company may no longer exist.
Now it's certainly not my place to ask you
to jeoparize your business or make major
financial sacrifices. My point is that there is
a lot of fear that "they" will "steal our ideas",
but I suspect a lot of this fear is just that.
I'm not sure, though. I can't ask people to
risk their livelihoods - but I can at least ask
people when in doubt be open. And I think
openness and freedom work a lot more often than people think.
Now I won't go so far (as RMS) as to say you have
"moral duty" to not work on propritary software,
and that what you're doing is bad. In a (mostly-)
free society what you're doing is perfectly ok.
But it is also perfectly ok for me to hope and work towarsd your busibess becoming obsolete.
That said, I strongly believe going the free software route is not the only way to develop software, nor should it be: commercial software, including closed source software, has a place.
Certainly people should be free to develop
closed source software.
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Surely you're not arguing closed source software hurts humanity?
It might. For example people, businesses, and
documents write, store, and communicate using
closed formats (such as Word), that might be prone
to viruses and that might becomes unreadable or unmaintainable when
the supplier no longer supports the software.
More to the point, I believe as a general rule "open source"
benefits humaity more than "closed source".
RMS has become your messiah, the GPL is your Scripture, and the FSF is your church. But hey, everyone's got to have faith in something, for some it's God, for others it's a software license.
I've had some very heated debates with RMS about
licensing. I don't want to go into details,
but there have been times he has been very angry at me. But we've patched things up, and we respect each other.
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Morality, I would argue, is about doing the right thing, not about doing more than required.
Instead of "morality", we can use the term "being a good person". There are certain minimum standards:
paying your taxes, not cheating (even when nobody's looking), avoid hurting people. Beyond the minimum
there are things that aren't required, but are good:
helping people when you aren't legally or ethically required. Sharing software is in the latter category: it's not an obligation.
A source of the problem lies in RMS's view (and apparently your's too) that corporations are obligated to improve humanity.
Er, no. Again your reading things that
aren't there. Corporations (or rather the
people who own or work for a corporation) have
an obligation to not hurt humanity,
but that's an ethical, not legal obligcation,
since it's difficult and contentious to
define "hurt". (One might argue that a little
polution might be an acceptable price to pay
for emplyment and producing something useful;
i.e. it requires judgement.)
if it's not GPL-compatible, then it's not open source.
This shows you have no clue about RMS.
First, RMS rejects the term "open source".
Secondly, the FSF is quite clear that there are
many non-GPL-compatible licenses used for what
they consider Free Software. They do consider
using such a license a Bad Idea (because it
prevents mixing software), but not contrary to
the ideals of Free Sofwtare.
There are certainly licenses that may increase the public good more than others, however, that doesn't concern corporations, and in fact, can (for certain companies) have a detrimental effect on the underlying reason for a corporation's very existence!
So what? Southwest Airlines has a detrimental
effect on United Airlines. Does that make
Southwest's business bad for society?
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
A corporation is at no obligation to provide the source to software it's developed.
Morality is about doing more than the minimum
required. And one reasonable goal of politics
and laws is to make encourage behavior that
increases the public good. I.e. you get to
write off on your taxes contributions to charity
because this encourages charitable giving.
"Sin taxes" (such as on alcohol) are justified
because they reduce the "sin" (i.e. drinking).
the corporation may have moral & ethical obligations to its employees and shareholds, therefore they must protect trade secrets and proprietary algorithms found in the said code.
But the question is what kind of behavior is
better for society as a whole - and how can we
encourage such behavior? I.e. can we encourage
sharing, assuming we believe that is good for
society? Does the GPL encourage sharing?
It seems to have worked well in that respect.
Is it ethical forcing everyong to conform to a single license?
Er, no. Where has RMS spoken for forcing
everyone to conform to a single license?
The FSF uses a number of different licenses,
based on pragmatic evaluations of what is
most likely to increase sharing.
Is it ethical condemning others who choose not to conform to the said license?
No, but one can argue that certain licenses (or
certain copyright laws!) are more ethical and/or
more likely to increase the public good than
certain other licenses and laws.
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It especially bothers me when he starts talking about OSS as morality and ethics.
I think that is a problem with you rather than RMS.
You don't think sharing, co-operation, and working
for the common good are moral values?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a user of Red Hat. I transitioned happily to Fedora, like lots of others.
Am I not allowed to have an opinion if I didn't write emacs?
Of course. It's fine to complain. It's fine to be a free-loader.
Doing both, however, is rather tacky. Thinking Red Hat owes you anything is rather immature.
And Red Hat has violated this how? Considering how many millions of dollars they have spent on developers, Q&A, and computer resources for Gcc, Gnome, the Linux kernel, NetworkManager, etc etc etc - and of course Fedora Core.
I apologize for not being familiar with your contributions to Gnu/Linux/Free Software. I'm assuming they're noteworthy; otherwise you wouldn't have written what you wrote.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Yes - unless you put then in the class file, as I indicated.
i>The type system of "Java with Unsigned" is indeed broken when used on the JVM.
You mean the same way "C++ with unsigned" is broken?The latter does not imply the former. I agree that standard JVM reflection won't be able to distinguish between signed and unsigned integers - though one could use annotations or some other mechanism so one could distinguish between signed and unisgned field and method types. Also, "type system" usually refers to the system of static types, and that is not broken - just different from standard Java.
I didn't say that. I said it suffices to flip the sign bit to compare two unsigned integers using signed integer comparisons:
(unsigned) X > (unsigned) Y
iff: (int) (X^0x80000000) > (int) (Y^0x80000000).
Obviously, addition and subtraction are trivial:
unsigned_add(i,j) == (unsigned int) (signed_add((int)i, (int)j)
Other operations can be implemented by casting to long, though of course that begs the question of how you handle unsigned long. Comparisons can be handled by flipping the sign bit. I.e. comparing two unsigned long (or int) can be done by flipping the sign bits, and then doing a signed comparison.
The only hard ones are multiplication and division. For those you could call suitable library methods.
Eh - the "open sourcing" of Java is *future* tense. ...
So your headline is rather beside the point
It's ironic seeing an article decrying a market leader for restricting choice - published in a format which restricts web browser choice, presumably to the browser of another market leader.
But it is valuable only within the context of the game/hobby. A car has realized value in the real world. Of course the argument is that so does e-gold, since there is a real-world market for it. A difference is that you "produced" the e-gold, just like making a quilt, while you received the car.
It probably could be argued quite a bit, but the implications of taxing in-game "gains" would be so scary that I doubt the IRS would want to go there.
How is this different from making a quilt and not selling it? Clearly, if you sell game gold, it is taxable income. But game gold (like a quilt) is not taxable until you sell it.
I guess it might be "inventory" - I don't know what the rules are for that.
Now whether it is earned income or capital gains may be trickier, perhaps depending on how you acquired it.
As far as I know the IEEE will happily accept "techs". I always thought membership was open to anyone, but it's hard to verify that right now, as their server seems to be having problems. I don't believe they do accreditation, though there has been talk about it.
The whole premise of the "Streamlined Sales Tax" agreement is that these rules will be a lot simpler and more uniform. How well it will work out in practice, we'll see. But the courts have made such tax simplification a pre-condition before states can require out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax.
This article (like all-too-many others) confuses energy and power (i.e. energy per unit of time). It's nonsense to talk about generating "10kW of power" "each time" something happens.
Agreed. When I right-click on a tab, I want an option to convert the tab to a new window. And I should be able to turn a window into a tab of another window. The latter is trickier, especially if you allow multiple applications in the same tab set. That implies tabs would be part of the window frame, and go above the application-specific menubar toolbar etc.
I.e. a window containing multiple tabs is logically multiple windows only one of which is visible at a time, and that are stacked on top of each other like a "deck".
But they're not in such an environment. The homophobia of relatives, neighbors, teachers, friends can be quite intense, if subtle. And there are subtle pressures for children of gay parents to be or appear to be "straight": Gay parents might be afraid of being accused of corrupting their child, or being bad parents, or have internalized homophobia of their own.
It's difficult to measure who "is" gay. It's difficult even defining it; rhe numbers we have are people who will say they are gay to a stranger. That obviously is an under-count even of people who consider themselves to be gay. It's near-impossible to get a number of those who "really" are gay, or would be in a less homophobic (and generally sex-phobic) world.
In the US more than 2% (of adult males at least) will describe themselves as primarily homosexual when asked by survey takers, exit polls, etc. (Sorry, no reference - just my memory of various figures.) Given the many people in the closet and in denial I think we can reasonably assume that the "real figure" is at least 2%. If you assumed a society where people would be free to have sex with and love whoever they want (and as many as they want), it is not unreasonable to guess the "real number" is at least 10%, and almost certainly so if you include bisexuals-who-prefer-the-same-sex. However, that is just a guess. The 2% figure seems pretty conservative.
(I.e. I'm not disagreeing with you - just adding some context.)
I say it's more complicated. More critically, while the goal of a corporation is to make money, society doesn't have a goal that corporations (and certainly not any particular corporation) make as much money as possible, only that there is a "healthy business climate".
There are more important things to discuss and concern ourselves with than software licenses.
Even Stallman agrees with this. There are more important things wrong with the world than non-Free software, abusive patents, and excessive copyright restrictions/length. But that is what Stallman and the FSF focuses on. Beware the trap of people who say "how can you be concerned about X when Y is going on". Even if Y is a worse ill than X, it is good that there are people working on X as well, as long as Y doesn't get ignored.
Actually, that's often not the case. First, some companies get started by people who are super-rich anyway, in which case the money is incidental. You don't think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates really care about making more money, except perhaps to measure themselves against each other? Secondly, lots of company decisions cannot be rationally justified in terms of making money, but have their basis in ego, "not inhented here", prestige, etc. Finally, whose money? Inflated salaries at the top generally cannot be justified by company profitability.
You want my business to become obsolete because I don't give away my code?
Yes, but I meant "product" (if it remains non-Free) rather than "company". That's in the nature of competition. I don't know your company's product, but I do hope that non-Free products like Microsoft Office become irrelevant. I hope that Free projecs can out-compete the non-Free products, in terms of features and quality. Even more so I hope people and companies will come to value and prefer Free Software because of its Freedom (sharing, modifibility, freedom from lock-in, interoperability, co-operation and less waste).
I don't dispute it. The interesting question is: Could your company benefit hunanity more by going the Free Software route, while still remaining profitable? I don't know the answer, but don't rule it out.
open sourcing our product ... could also hurt us as competitors (including Microsoft) would have complete access to our algorithms, trade secrets, and other proprietary software intricacies.
Ah, but you're the ones who have experience with the code-base, and who have a working product based on it. They're the ones that would have to play catch-up to you. And if you use the GPL, they could only use your code if their code was also open. In which case, wouldn't you love to be able to point out to customers this fact? Yes, they could use your trade secrets and algorithms (which are not covered by the GPL), but if these are non-trivial they still have to have somebody understand them and figure out how to make use of them within their own technology. So they're at least a generation behind you. The competitive value of "trade secrets" is mostly short-term. Once a product is out, then the value of any secrets is usually minimal.
If going open source can negatively affect our bottom line, then the whole "help the world by sharing your code" line is totally irrelevant to us.
You realize what you're saying here? The "bottom line" trumps all other considerations. You and your company have no other goals than to maximize profit, as long as you stay within the law. I don't think you really mean this. There are intangibles that are also valuable, even to a public company: Public benefit can increase company visibility and "goodwill". It can increase visibility, professional recognition, and job satisfaction of employees. Recognition as an industry leader may increase. These can also help the bottom line, but in more indirect ways.
If giving our code away means losing dollars, our company may no longer exist.
Now it's certainly not my place to ask you to jeoparize your business or make major financial sacrifices. My point is that there is a lot of fear that "they" will "steal our ideas", but I suspect a lot of this fear is just that. I'm not sure, though. I can't ask people to risk their livelihoods - but I can at least ask people when in doubt be open. And I think openness and freedom work a lot more often than people think.
Now I won't go so far (as RMS) as to say you have "moral duty" to not work on propritary software, and that what you're doing is bad. In a (mostly-) free society what you're doing is perfectly ok. But it is also perfectly ok for me to hope and work towarsd your busibess becoming obsolete.
That said, I strongly believe going the free software route is not the only way to develop software, nor should it be: commercial software, including closed source software, has a place.
Certainly people should be free to develop closed source software.
It might. For example people, businesses, and documents write, store, and communicate using closed formats (such as Word), that might be prone to viruses and that might becomes unreadable or unmaintainable when the supplier no longer supports the software. More to the point, I believe as a general rule "open source" benefits humaity more than "closed source".
RMS has become your messiah, the GPL is your Scripture, and the FSF is your church. But hey, everyone's got to have faith in something, for some it's God, for others it's a software license.
I've had some very heated debates with RMS about licensing. I don't want to go into details, but there have been times he has been very angry at me. But we've patched things up, and we respect each other.
Instead of "morality", we can use the term "being a good person". There are certain minimum standards: paying your taxes, not cheating (even when nobody's looking), avoid hurting people. Beyond the minimum there are things that aren't required, but are good: helping people when you aren't legally or ethically required. Sharing software is in the latter category: it's not an obligation.
A source of the problem lies in RMS's view (and apparently your's too) that corporations are obligated to improve humanity.
Er, no. Again your reading things that aren't there. Corporations (or rather the people who own or work for a corporation) have an obligation to not hurt humanity, but that's an ethical, not legal obligcation, since it's difficult and contentious to define "hurt". (One might argue that a little polution might be an acceptable price to pay for emplyment and producing something useful; i.e. it requires judgement.)
if it's not GPL-compatible, then it's not open source.
This shows you have no clue about RMS. First, RMS rejects the term "open source". Secondly, the FSF is quite clear that there are many non-GPL-compatible licenses used for what they consider Free Software. They do consider using such a license a Bad Idea (because it prevents mixing software), but not contrary to the ideals of Free Sofwtare.
There are certainly licenses that may increase the public good more than others, however, that doesn't concern corporations, and in fact, can (for certain companies) have a detrimental effect on the underlying reason for a corporation's very existence!
So what? Southwest Airlines has a detrimental effect on United Airlines. Does that make Southwest's business bad for society?
Morality is about doing more than the minimum required. And one reasonable goal of politics and laws is to make encourage behavior that increases the public good. I.e. you get to write off on your taxes contributions to charity because this encourages charitable giving. "Sin taxes" (such as on alcohol) are justified because they reduce the "sin" (i.e. drinking).
the corporation may have moral & ethical obligations to its employees and shareholds, therefore they must protect trade secrets and proprietary algorithms found in the said code.
But the question is what kind of behavior is better for society as a whole - and how can we encourage such behavior? I.e. can we encourage sharing, assuming we believe that is good for society? Does the GPL encourage sharing? It seems to have worked well in that respect.
Is it ethical forcing everyong to conform to a single license?
Er, no. Where has RMS spoken for forcing everyone to conform to a single license? The FSF uses a number of different licenses, based on pragmatic evaluations of what is most likely to increase sharing.
Is it ethical condemning others who choose not to conform to the said license?
No, but one can argue that certain licenses (or certain copyright laws!) are more ethical and/or more likely to increase the public good than certain other licenses and laws.
I think that is a problem with you rather than RMS. You don't think sharing, co-operation, and working for the common good are moral values?
GCJ does work on Windows. Here is a useful link.