ESR on "flerbage"
[link|http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-08-17-016-20-OP-CY|Eric Raymond: Freedom, Power, or Confusion?]
He sides with O'Reilly because the FSF seems to want to decrease his "flerbage". :-)
[...] I'm going to invent a nonsense word now: "flerbage". And I'm going to define it. I have the condition of flerbage when I can behave in the confidence that nobody will take my life, my physical property, or my time without my consent.
[...]
Now let's suppose I'm a software developer. I write open-source software to have fun and make money. I write proprietary software to have fun and make money. Part of my flerbage is that I can offer people a license that says "I trade you my software on the condition that you (a) pay me some money, and (b) don't give a copy to anyone else." If they accept, fine. If they don't, also fine; I wander off to find another customer, and they wander off to find another developer. Again, Tim's premise seems pretty benign.
Stichard Rallman releases a piece of software under an open-source license that is superior to one of my proprietary products. Has he decreased my flerbage? No. The time I spent coding my product has decreased in tradeable value, but he hasn't forced me to labor for anyone else's benefit. Nor has he measurably increased the odds that I will be killed or robbed. Tim's premise is good for both of us.
But now let's suppose that, after years of lobbying, messrs Kuhn and Stallman get a law passed that makes proprietary licenses illegal. We are now in the world of the FSF's premise.
As a user, my flerbage doesn't change. I never wanted to issue software under a proprietary license to begin with, so the new license doesn't touch me.
But as a developer, things are very different now. If I walk up to someone and offer them the same proprietary license that I did before the law was passed, police may come to my house to drag me off to jail, or kill me if I resist arrest. My flerbage has seriously decreased.
I think ESR makes a clear case, and a pretty good one. I certainly agree with his point that using clear, baggage-free language is important in discussions that can get emotional.
What do you think of his conclusion? It's not an ideal solution - the idea of MS (or any other monopoly) taking "free" code and making it proprietary via extensions to usurp a market is abhorent to me - but I think it's better than software "freedom" imposed by the FSF.
Here's a [link|http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-08-17-011-20-OP-CY-MS|link] to a Linux Today story on the original debate.
If I'm mistaken, be gentle. I'm not up on all the nuances of the RMS/FSF/Open Source debate...
Cheers,
Scott.