[Flug] [TonStanco@aol.com] free company

[Christopher R. Gabriel]

A voi.

-- 
Christopher Gabriel     www.linux.it/~cgabriel/
-----------------------------------------------
Monday, October 18, 1982: MIT scientists have
three sides of Rubik's Cube complete.

------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: TonStanco@aol.com
Message-ID: <72.2afc978.26e2421c@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 07:44:28 EDT
Subject: free company
To: info@firenze.linux.it
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Your members may like to be involved in participating in Free
Developers, where we are building a free software company for the
world. We discuss the free company that will be owned and run by all
developers worldwide, democratically. All the software will be licensed
under the GPL. And the free company will pay developers to develop
free software. 

Richard Stallman has regularly participated. 

We have the following simple structure for getting some real, focused
work done. 

1. Every Monday we propose a new issue or issues for the list to
consider.
2. Tuesday-Saturday we discuss the issue(s) focusing our collective brain 
power on resolving those during the week.
3. Sunday we have quiet reflection to think about the discussions we had 
during the week (or just enjoy ourselves).
4. Monday we vote on the issue. And propose the issues for the next
week.

We will use this process to build the business plan for the free software
company that will be assembled from the discussions.

The issue this week is: 

ISSUE: Should developers be paid to develop free software by the free 
company? 

If you or your group members are interested in these issues, join the
discussion at www.topica.com/lists/freedevelopers. Subscribe by sending
an email to FreeDevelopers-subscribe@topica.com. See 
www.topica.com/lists/freedevelopers

Best regards,

Tony Stanco


>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Some postings:

[Stanco]: 

I think we've achieved the outlines of the basic strategy. Let's recap
where I think we are after all these emails. If I have something wrong,
please correct me. 

+ Developers can be paid salaries and/or stock options to work on free
code without violating the core principles of free code. 

+. Mergers and acquisitions of proprietary companies are not
objectionable in defeating proprietary. 

+. A democratic company of free developers, by free developers, for
free developers is an acceptable vehicle to achieve the ends of free code. 

+. A requirement in the certificate of incorporation that all code owned
by the company is licensed under GPL or other tying to FSF is
appropriate to ensure that the core principles of free software are
observed going forward and to protect from slipping back to proprietary. 


+++++++++++++ 

[Stallman]: 

So I don't think that we should give up on everyone who is not a total 
idealist.  Many people can become partly idealists, if we show them 
the reason to be, and they can do a tremendous amount of good. 


++++++++++++++++ 

[Stanco]: 

What does FSF think of direct developer 
compensation in the form of salaries and stock options? I think there is a
growing consensus among my respondents that this is OK. 
 

[Stallman]: 

I see nothing wrong about it. 

+++++++++++++++++ 

[Stallman]: 

In general, all else being equal, I think it is good for programmers 
who develop free software to get paid, to have more money rather than 
less.  I practiced a couple of kinds of free software business in the 
1980s because I think it is a good thing if I have money, and what is 
legitimate for me is legitimate for other people. 


+++++++++++++++++++ 

[Stallman]: 

The Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement have 
completely different political and philosophical views.  On that 
ground, they are our rivals.  We can and do work with them on some 
practical projects, but our focus is on building the demand for 
freedom--something which they ridicule. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++


[participant]: 

The whole world is watching to see if a hero will appear to 
be a Microsoft slayer. The Justice Department, the 
government, the French, the Chinese, the press, the users, 
the companies, the developers, the students, the academics, 
all want to see a revolution. They will support a revolution 
now. Why do you think open source received such a 
thunderous reception? This is the time to strike, when the 
whole world's attention is on the perniciousness of 
proprietary. Once the world's spotlight moves on and 
Microsoft regains its footing, it may be another 20 years 
before free software will get another opening, if it ever does 
again. If we don't strike now, I don't know when we will get 
as good a chance. I think the press will play it as a popular 
revolution--free developers against a tyrant. A new storming 
of the Bastille. Isn't that what you've been saying along. 
That developers must be free? The rest of the world has 
finally caught up with you and now you have second 
thoughts? 

By the way, who do you think will be against us? The only 
ones who want to perpetuate the hegemonies are the 
proprietary companies themselves. The rest of the world is 
rightfully afraid of their growing power. Academics in 
particular now see the light. Big business is especially afraid 
of secret code running their core activities, since Y2K. If we 
give them a model that they can understand, we will have all 
the support we'll need. 

Also, if we free proprietaries' developers, how does 
proprietary compete? That is the reason why I was so 
adamant that free developers have to be paid. The 
proprietary companies are the only ones that want to keep 
this going as it is, and if they lose their developers they will 
be hollowed from within and they won't have the power to 
maintain their evil empires. 

Let's turn our energies to manifesting the destiny. 



------- End of forwarded message -------