Association Bordelaise des Utilisateurs de Logiciels libres

From: TonStanco@aol.com
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:51:53 EDT
Subject: free developers / free company discussion
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 112

I am a securities attorney in the Internet and online services group at the 
Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC and published author on 
Internet and free/open software issues. I have started a discussion area on 
the formation of a democratic entity for the development of free/open 
software. We discuss a free company to be formed 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. 

The discussion on the free company was started with Richard Stallman some 
months ago and the emails over 22 days between us are posted there to start 
the community thinking about the ideas. Some highlights from the emails are 
included below. 

If you are interested in these issues, join the dialogue at 
www.topica.com/lists/freedevelopers. Subscribe by sending an email to 
FreeDevelopers-subscribe@topica.com to receive and post without having to 
provide any information to Topica.com. [If you subscribe using the subscribe 
button on the Topica web page, instead of just emailing, Topica.com will want 
some information]. 

Best regards, 

Tony Stanco 


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

Highlights from the Stallman/Stanco email discussions on the formation of a 
business entity by free developers, of free developers, for a free world. 

The series talks about how to pay free developers, what kind of free 
institution is appropriate for free developers, and how to defeat 
proprietary. 


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

[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. 

1. Proprietary code is the enemy. It must be destroyed for developers and the 
world to be free. Open source is an ally. 

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

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

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

5. 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. 

6. A democratic, free developer run corporation does not require special 
safeguards to protect ordinary world citizens. 


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

[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. 

This is not one battle, it is a long war.  So it is crucial for the 
long haul to remember what we are fighting for: freedom to cooperate. 
Right now the community is tending to forget this goal--because only 
the Free Software Movement and the GNU Project talk about it.  The 
Open Source Movement does not recognize this goal. 

In order to talk about it, we must distinguish ourselves from 
the Open Source Movement.  If we are lumped in with them, people 
will assume we agree with them, and we will fail to get our 
message across. 

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

[Stanco]: 

In the end, I think to really win the war we have to break the business model 
of proprietary. The support of business and investors will be needed for that 
battle so they must be made allies and not alienated. 

As I have suggested before, I think uniting and paying the developers (both 
free and proprietary) is the way to defeat proprietary. Developers are the 
important piece in software development, not the companies. Without 
developers, companies cannot create software. Companies keep code secret to 
divide developers and keep them weak and dependent. However, developers need 
to be paid to support their families, so they acquiesce to the companies 
treatment. In being paid by the company, they have some allegiance to the 
company even while they resent being enslaved by it. If we pay developers to 
produce free software, they will repudiate their old masters. If they 
repudiate proprietary companies, proprietary companies die. 

In my opinion, the only obstacle for free to defeat proprietary is that free 
must pay developers. This shouldn't sound like a radical statement. People 
need to be paid for their work, since they need money to support their 
families. 

Since proprietary software is currently only a necessary evil that divides 
and enslaves developers, what developer would work for proprietary, if he is 
paid to be free? 

The walls of proprietary come tumbling down if we achieve this one feat. That 
is why I keep pressing for a new free company, which will pay developers to 
produce free software. I don't understand why you have a resistance to it? 
You said that you have no objection to developers being paid. And the current 
open companies don't really pay the developers, they just piggy-back on their 
unpaid work. Also, the current open companies are not philosophically 
committed to free software. The current open companies just want to replace 
the current proprietary companies and are using unpaid labor of the 
developers to do so. 

If you want free to success without paying developers, I think you are 
expecting too much from them. They may be good people, but you can't expect 
them to give up the livelihood that supports their families. That is just 
expecting each one to be a martyr and that's expecting too much. 

Ironically, to business/investors, not paying developers just seems nuts. 
They don't understand it and that adversely impacts their acceptance of free 
software needlessly. 

Somehow this money thing has become the obstacle to achieving the goals of 
free software and I don't think it needs to be that way. 


+++++++++++++++++++++++ 
[Stanco]: 

What do you think of this...? 

Imagine free developers united to acquire 
proprietary companies, freeing the code and 
absorbing proprietary coders into their ranks 
with each acquisition. 

Imagine them going from proprietary 
company to proprietary company across the 
landscape continually freeing code and coder 
alike, until all code and hackers are free, 
worldwide. 

Imagine also developers paid to hack free 
code. 

That's my vision of Hackers-Go-A-Borgin'. 

Seriously, I beginning to wonder if the 
fastest and surest way to defeat proprietary 
wouldn't be by merger and acquisition of 
proprietary companies. Taking control of 
proprietary companies and re-licensing their 
software under GPL will free the code. Once 
it is free, it cannot be un-freed. Freeing 
proprietary code allows free developers to 
improve and integrate it with other GPL 
code. Also, the developers of the proprietary 
companies could be voluntarily liberated into 
free's ranks, if they are paid. Who would 
work for proprietary, if they are paid in free? 

It's a bold move, but hollowing proprietary 
by taking its code and developers should be 
considered, I think. If it can work, it would 
break the business models of proprietary, so 
they will have a difficult time to compete 
against it. 

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

[Stanco]: 

I am not sure we talked about how the company would receive revenues to pay 
salaries to free developers. My thoughts are that governments, industry 
associations, large companies, hardware companies and 
service/support/maintenance companies would be willing to provide R&D or 
other funds for paying free developers, because of the superior attributes of 
free code in their operations. All these entities resent proprietary code and 
would welcome an alternative. Since software should be a social good, like 
roads for example, rather than a competitive advantage, they understand it is 
better as free software, because proprietary code only benefits proprietary 
companies. 

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

[Stanco]: 

The existing companies have 2 major shortcomings in my mind. The first is how 
I got into going hard core on all of this to begin with: there is fundamental 
injustice between the free developers doing the work, and the companies, 
their management and their investors that disproportionately profit. The 
current situation in my mind is exploitative of the developers. The 
developers are lead by high ideals by the leaders, while the leaders are 
disproportionately benefited. It is what drove me to write my first article 
on open source. I see in the rhetoric that developers should give to the 
community, but I don't see the leaders living by the same terms. I don't see 
them giving up their vast accumulation of wealth that is built on what the 
developers do, for the good of the community, which they should do to be 
consistent I think. They then use some more rhetoric to justify the 
difference between how they live and how the developers live (i.e., they need 
to do it so investors/business will support open source). It is a little too 
convenient an argument for me. My first article dealt with that and compared 
it to the Marxist leaders, who used the same maneuvers. It took the Russian 
people 4 generations to catch on. This is the hypocrite argument I made in 
the article that incorporated your "poverty" as a foil, to which you 
objected. 

The second shortcoming results from the education I got at your hand. I 
originally thought open was better than free. Partly because I misunderstood 
what you meant by free (i.e., I thought you were anti-property rights) which 
fed into the same argument about the failed Russian Marxist experiment. 
Partly because I didn't fully understand what open was in fact doing. Open is 
partly free, partly proprietary. My guess is that they will go completely 
proprietary once they are successful enough to do so. While I think they are 
a useful ally against proprietary now. There will have to be a second battle 
with them to ensure that they do not try to replace the current proprietary 
with their own. Their corporate structure is set-up to do that. They will 
have a hard time resisting that, because of fiduciary duties to their 
shareholders to do what is in the best interests of their shareholders even 
if that harms free software. That is why I think the corporate charter has to 
state from the beginning that the software owned by the company has to be 
licensed under GPL. Placing that in the charter cuts-off the fiduciary duties 
of management to close the code for the benefit of shareholders. You should 
understand that any company has only one constituency and that is to serve 
the company's shareholders. That is corporate law. I think the current 
companies will use that as a rhetorical argument to make free software 
eventually proprietary. 

I have a different view from the current companies. I think that free 
developers can join together to create their own company. They will own the 
company. They will be the shareholders to which the fiduciary duties are 
owed. They will benefit from the work they do. While the current companies 
have the developers on the side as they milk them like beasts of burden, I 
would place them squarely in the center of the company. 


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

[Stanco]: 

Strategically right now it seems, proprietary has the 
advantage, because they are the only ones that pay 
for full time developers. That's a huge advantage. 
To displace that, free needs to offer that on top 
of what it offers to developers now. As I've said 
before, who would work for proprietary if they 
are paid in free? Proprietary empowers the 
companies, while it divides and disenfranchises 
the developers. The developers only by necessity 
accept that condition. 

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


[Stanco]: 

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.