Folks, I think Philip said "It's okay to use windows if you use a pirated copy. Just don't pay Microsoft for it." come come, people! Was he really serious? No one, repeat, NO one is forcing anybody to use Microsoft products. People use them because they, for various reasons, find no better alternative. Microsoft are within their rights to charge anything they want for any part of their products (someone mentioned that you get the OS but not the API). If you do not like that but still buy them, then it is you who is the sucker, not them unethical.

Microsoft is a company like any other. It is a commercial venture who has to look after the prosperity of its shareholders. They also have to protect themselves from the competition by devising schemes and strategies to beat them. In this they are no different from any other company (take the example of the Cola wars). In this business environment, the stronger, smarter one survives. Very much like nature.

RMS is a person. More than that he is an academician. He is one of that breed for whom creativity is reward enough - that is their life passion. I have lived among academicians all my life. There are scientists and researchers who sweat and work their butts off, expanding the frontiers of science and human understanding - on a flat salary. Is it possible to imagine a Mathematician selling his proof for money to different Universities? Why, the mathematician who developed most of game theory, John Nash jr., on which much of modern economics is based, did not become a millionaire (or receive _any_ monetary benefit out of it). Here it is learning for the sake of the thirst, not money. Even as near as till 50 years back all pure sciences used to enjoy this kind of freedom. The freedom of not only sharing but distributing knowledge. RMS feels computers also fall into this category, he being part of the breed. I for one agree with him. Whatever, if ever, work I do in this field will be there for all. But why do we insist that everyone should follow this way of life.

Trade and commerce are as old as our civilisations themselves. They have their valid place in society. For eg. Edison and the founder of Gillette tried and failed many time before they perfected and _sold_ their products. There were some like Vincent Van Gaug who painted to pass the time(to keep his sanity maybe?) and there were other who did it because some King commissioned them. Both is art. The point is, the driving force for some is money and for someone something else. We cannot call one correct and the other wrong. To make use of intellectual property for the better of all or the better of oneself has to be the decision of the intellectual himself.

For whatever cribbs I have read about Microsoft and proprietary software, the best answer I can think up is the GNU & OpenSource movements themselves. These happened because someone (many ones) were dissatisfied with the situation and took steps to change things. It brought a lot of like minded people together, and they worked for the good of all. What is most, MOST important IMHO, is the availability of freedom for such behavior. People were free to choose. and they choose to change things. Other chose to stick with Microsoft(etc.). Both have their reasons and I feel both are right. As FSF is _free_ to choose and decide its ideology and strategy, so is Microsoft _free_ to choose its priorities. And so are you _free_ to choose between them and the others... This is the real freedom.

Does a restaurant, who has a popular special dish, disclose its secret recipe? If people feel that they do require the source code for further modifications (I seriously doubt the number outside of computer crazies) and if Microsoft(etc.) refuses, then they have alternatives. They should and often do ignore/boycott Microsoft. But then because Microsoft does not agree with your point of view does not mean they are wrong. They never said that they are in the knowledge sharing business. They are making software which will enable you to use your hardware in such a way as to increase your efficiency(their claim), do things you could not otherwise do (mind you, here I mean for eg. the 'act of sending email' not the software to do it), and be more productive, then they are within their right to sell this software - with all strings attached. If there is any other better alternative to them available, they will be wiped out of the market.

As for exorbitant charges, compare vegetable prices at Kurla and Santacruz (W). People often charge because a lot of people pay. Red Hat dares to charge Rs2000+ for their manuals (does it cost so much to print?) because they have made a name and can.

In society people are driven by various things - ego, pride, creative urge, credit from others, lust or money, need for money, philanthropy etc. So long as these things adhere to the common moral code of conduct we all agree to, we can smirk at some of them but we cannot call any of them wrong.

---------------------

what is it that we live this whole life for? as a human being, I feel that creating something is about the only thing... to live life day in and day out in a mundane routine is not for me... I should make a difference... walk a new path... or die trying... To want is to sin, I feel... want is recursive... with no terminating condition. The path is dangerous... but to walk it is itself a victory. knowledge is decocted essence of information... Wisdom is decocted essence of knowledge... for this we shall strive... long live the revolution... "break on through"

quasi