[NCLUG] Re: NCLUG Digest, Vol 184, Issue 15

[John L. Bass]

Let me put it a different way. By your argument, there can not be an 
absolute monopoly (like a regulated utility monopoly) in the free market 
with proprietary software either, as long as some competitive product 
can be written and sold by any means.

That does not stop Microsoft (or any other large vendor) from creating a 
de facto monopoly, where there is insignificant competition.

Likewise, there is equal risk, that overly aggressive free software 
advocates, with express intent to dominate all other choices, can create 
a de facto monopoly, even with free software. Especially, when the 
intent is to remove a consumers access to all proprietary software.

So, does it really matter if the de facto monopoly is created by 
Microsoft or Linux advocates? Isn't that still a monopoly?

There was not that long ago there was another debate, some deep 
political posturing to remove KDE, and force GNOME as the dominate 
alternative. http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry1920.html

A lot of voices chimed in, that "choice" is always best. I say the same 
thing ... choice ... both free software, AND proprietary software is the 
best thing.

John

Rob Bayerl wrote:
> On 9/18/08, John L. Bass <jbass at dmsd.com> wrote:
>   
>> I do not support those that wish to co-opt the free software movement to
>> be the free monopoly software movement.
>>     
>
> This in itself is illogical.  There can be no monopoly of free
> software, except in the case where there is no choice but to chose
> from free software options.  With free software, the user will always
> have a choice of which software they use; which may or may not use
> differing licenses.  A good example of this is window managers.  GNOME
> and KDE are very different from each other and use different licenses,
> not to mention there are hundreds of other options (which includes no
> window manager at all).  If all software becomes free software, choice
> will always remain.
>