So you think the unhidered, brutal capitalism in 19th century England is the way to go? You don't want any quantitative (ultra-successful) limitation, but only qualitative (right or wrong) limitation? Is it entirely no problem that one individual possesses billions of dollars while billions of people posses almost none? WHY SHOULDN'T THERE BE ANY QUANTITATIVE LIMITATIONS?
Of course, US antitrust law is not against monopoly, so what you are saying misses the point, but here I beg to differ in what you seem to be really saying. Although I think MS is in fact doing a lot of WRONG things and should be fined trillions of dollars, that's aside the point.
> Just that the government that represents those companies shouldn't be undermining them.
Well, the government does not represent only software compnanies. As RMS pointed out a few days ago, free software could help the rest of us enormously. And not only because it is cheeper.
Because proprietary software takes our data hostage by withholding the file format. This should be enough reason for the government, who has to store enormous amount of data for a long time, to fund free software. Quality of the software would be another reason.
And it is not as if they are spending a lot of money either.
Another thing he said was that talking about "Intellectual Propery" should be avoided because it oversimplifies the whole subject by blurring the difference between copyrights and patent rights, which are totally different.
I once heard Robert Dewar pointing out that neither copyright nor patent should be treated as property; that they are rather privillages that are granted for the sake of public benefit. I don't know if Stallman has the same position, but what he said reminded me of this.
If I remember correctly (I was at the talk), he said that 1) most businesses are not in software business, 2) 90% of those are in software are in custom development business, and 3) since most businesses don't distribute their custom software, GPL doesn't apply.
I have to agree I don't see how GPL can be bad for non-software business.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know anything about this?
The message itself you may as well publish on the web.
Why should there be no limit if he had earned it? Why does it make it necessary there should not be any limit?
Of course, US antitrust law is not against monopoly, so what you are saying misses the point, but here I beg to differ in what you seem to be really saying. Although I think MS is in fact doing a lot of WRONG things and should be fined trillions of dollars, that's aside the point.
Well, the government does not represent only software compnanies. As RMS pointed out a few days ago, free software could help the rest of us enormously. And not only because it is cheeper.
Because proprietary software takes our data hostage by withholding the file format. This should be enough reason for the government, who has to store enormous amount of data for a long time, to fund free software. Quality of the software would be another reason. And it is not as if they are spending a lot of money either.
I once heard Robert Dewar pointing out that neither copyright nor patent should be treated as property; that they are rather privillages that are granted for the sake of public benefit. I don't know if Stallman has the same position, but what he said reminded me of this.
I have to agree I don't see how GPL can be bad for non-software business.