Re: [Fsuk-manchester] RMS on Swedish Pirate Party vs Free Software

[Pater Mann]

I may be wrong (it does happen! [grin]) but I think that the GNU
project was originally created to try and break the stranglehold that
AT&T used to have over Unix. As computers are not much good without an
operating system, in that context the principles of free software as
described by RMS and the FSF make perfect sense. On that basis, there
are strong arguments for systems software being free and I am in
complete agreement with that. However, it seems to have gone way
beyond that original premise and has turned into the idea that *all*
software should be free. As applications software is not required for
a computer to operate, I cannot see any reason why it should also be
free.

I am struggling to understand why (applications) software should be
different to almost any other commodity. If I was an engineer who
created a new engine, I wouldn't be expected to tell everyone the
details of how it works; if I was an industrial chemist that created a
new form of plastic, I wouldn't be expected to tell everyone how to
make it; if I was a chef who created a new dish, I wouldn't be
expected to just give away the recipe; if I was a biochemist that
developed a new anti-cancer drug, at least there is a moral argument
that says that after I have recouped my development costs (or even
earlier) I should release the details to help save more lives but, as
far as I am aware, there is no such imperative. So why should I have
to give away the software that I develop? If I choose to give it away
(and I almost always do), that is my decision and I am happy to make
it but I should not be forced to do so.