IBM Linux Video, going OT...

[Keith Mastin]

>> Oh? Why is that? If a corporation wants to release a piece of software
>> that will benefit those who use it, if it's available freely for all to
>> use and contribute to, what's the beef? My own personal belief is that
>> if it doesn't violate the license to use it, fill yer boots.
>
> <philisophical rant>
>
> I'd argue that the only things worth anything are those that you can't
> put a value on.

I would agree if you were referring to family or mom's special apple pie,
but not for software. Computers, like homes, cost money. Yes, one could
live without either, but I personally don't want to. I like making a
living by playing with computers, and I like my home that it pays for.
Both are valuated with a dollar figure.

What makes OSS valuable is that we can do so much with it and that it
works, not that it's free (as in beer). Put a price tag on it and people
will pay (and yes, some will steal).

Some of us just don't want stuff just because it's free (as in beer).
There are plenty of free (as in beer) cardboard boxes that one could drag
under a bridge instead of paying rent and bills. I think going to jail is
free (asa in beer) too, but I'm not jumping at it just because it's free
(as in beer).

> Of course that becomes impractical so compromises are made, collectively
> and personally, that often times result in a great deal of good. You
> gotta get by somehow. But everything derived is tainted, however
> miniscule. So by eliminating money from the equation all together, it's
> a step towards operating in a karmic clean room, if you will :)

Christian folks say that everyone is tainted until they die or something
like that, but I don't think they condone not living because of it.

Knowing nothing about karma (or Christian religion, obviously), I think
that contributing to OSS projects (yes, even by using them) is plenty.
Someone mentioned that they don't use postfix because it's released freely
(as in beer, not as in speech) under an IBM license. So what about qmail?
It's not GPL, so does that make it bad? Does the fact that both of these
freely (again, only as in beer) available software are emphatically
superior to other (free, as in beer) mail server software make any
difference, or should they both be shunned because they are not GPL? Does
this make the GPL a religion, or just something else to be zealotreous
over?

What if someone writes a piece of software while in University under a
corporate scholarship while studying to become some kind of software guru
dude? Should karma also shut down that software and keep it from being
used freely? Think deep before answering that one, it may have a shotgun
hidden deep within it somewhere. :)

> Trying to live by your principles can be quite a challenge, and I am
> reminded of this by what I experienced as a vegetarian some years ago,
> though I am not any longer. Linux, OSS, freeware, BSD, it is just
> software when you look at it scientifically or rationally. But like
> discovering middle eastern food when you come from a basically
> meat-and-potatoes-eatin' family, it presents you with other options (and
> tasty ones too!) so you can live closer to the way you want to live.
> That's priceless.

In an OSS vs. M$ sort of way maybe. I have no problems paying for anythng
that works the way I want it to. And so Linux has a value that is worth
paying for, IMHO. I have no opinion on the meatless food, as I'm an
adamantly strong respector of lots of cooked dead animal parts in my diet.
:p
-- 
Keith
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml