| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet)No future in proprietary software (ZDNet)Posted Dec 4, 2002 23:05 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) by dbreakey Parent article: No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) My understanding is that there is no connection. The answer is taken out of context. The question was "Which is more likely to happen: Free software conquers Microsoft, or Microsoft embraces free software." What RMS is saying is that abolition of software copyright won't destroy Microsoft - they still can "innovate". They don't need the proprietary software model to continue to exist. RMS is not saying that the software copyrights were not essential for Microsoft to become who they are now. The question was about the future, not about the past, and RMS gives an answer about the future.
(Log in to post comments)
No future in proprietary software (ZDNet) Posted Dec 9, 2002 18:33 UTC (Mon) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] The problem here, as I see it, is that RMS is answering in a deliberately obscure manner, probably to promote just the kind of discussion as is now going on in this thread. While this is obviously an effective tactic, it strikes me as just a little underhanded, especially considering his proclaimed stance on such issues. I applaud him for managing to promote the discussion in the first place (good or bad, it needs to take place), but I wish he would (or perhaps could) use less devious methods. Incidentally, to me, he is subtly implying, without actually stating it outright, that Microsoft, since it now possesses so much in the way of material resources, now has a moral and/or social obligation to produce socially useful software (ie: 'free' software). Does anyone else see it this way, or am I just completely out of touch?
|
|
||||||||||||