The idea that competition means "loss of innocence" shows a misunderstanding about the "open source" community. Before open source, the Free Software Foundation had the goal of keeping software free for use and modification, and not much else. This goal grew partially from the loss of community that was felt when programmers at universities went on to private companies (where they were not permitted to share their work), but the main purpose was to keep software evolving freely.

One idea often missed behind licensing source code as "permanently open," as GNU licenses do, is that people can still make money -- for example, through support or distribution. Other models don't demand that you open your alterations to the code, just that you acknowledge the original copyright. The possibility of making a good living, or even a huge pile of cash, appears to me to have been purposefully and carefully included even in the most restrictive GNU model. I've made good money supporting GNU software, and like any business it's competitive; I have to offer better service and expertise for the same money as the other consultants, or underbid them.

There should be no surprise that there is competition among Linux companies. They're all selling something, and they all hope that their way is best, or at least best suited to making money. The fact that they're competing for dollars is a healthy sign of growing acceptance of the software and licensing models that they support.

-- Joseph Balsama

Selective service
BY JOE CONASON (07/13/99)

While it is true that George W. Bush and Dan Quayle "avoided" going to Vietnam by joining the National Guard, and that they probably had help in getting appointed, Joe Conason's characterization of Clinton as a "fatherless young man from a poor family ... who didn't want to fight in a war he believed was terribly wrong" is misleading.

Clinton, while not rich, was not without influence. He got accepted to and managed to afford both Georgetown and Yale. In addition, he fondly lists Sen. Fulbright, from whom he received a Fulbright scholarship, as a mentor. While in England, he managed to afford trips abroad (to Russia et al.) and to various anti-war protests.

When Clinton returned from Oxford, the "fatherless young man from a poor family" was offered Conason's "honorable method of evading Vietnam" reserved for fortunate sons in the ROTC. Clinton accepted this politically brokered appointment rather than be sent to Vietnam -- an acceptance for which Conason derides both Bush and Quayle.

The difference between these three men lies in the fact that when the roll was called for the Texas Air National Guard, George W. Bush was there to answer it. When the roll was called for the Indiana National Guard, Dan Quayle was there to answer it. When the roll was called for the University of Arkansas ROTC, William Jefferson Clinton, who had promised to report for duty, was off somewhere not inhaling.

As Conason points out, Al Gore did enlist in the Army and did go to Vietnam. But, according to Salon, "Gore served as an Army journalist assigned to an engineering brigade near Saigon. In seven months' duty he never saw one American casualty." Conason never subjects Gore to the same speculation to which he subjects Bush and Quayle. Did the powerful Sen. Albert Gore Sr. exert any influence to make sure that Al Jr. was stationed well away from danger?

Only Bob Smith and John McCain have room to make an issue of any other candidate's Vietnam record.

-- Robert Smyre
San Francisco

For any person who followed the Vietnam War, it is clear that the majority of those who went, fought and died came from the wrong side of town. It is clear that all those rich boys used their families' influence to enjoy safe and cushy jobs in their states' National Guards. Did they receive preferential treatment? Yes. Was George W. qualified to be accepted to the officers school? No. Was it right that he jumped over other 100,000 young man with better qualifications than his? No.

I would be happier and more confident in his character if he admitted to the special treatment he received, a form of affirmative action that I doubt voters will reverse. I would be happier if he could come clean and declare "There is no difference between me and Bill Clinton. I am a draft dodger, too." What a bunch of hypocrites.

-- Maria J. Swanson

Next page | Mon dieu! What horrible French stereotypes!