Jil Larner <jil <at> gnoo.eu> writes:
> May I suggest you split the discussion if you continue about licensing, > so we can keep a clear topic on Daniel's come back ? I only use licensing as an example (that I'm willing to defend as long as it takes) to support the notion of vehicles to generate revenue around the 'gentoo engine'. After all, if you look at Daniel's recent past, he's been searching for ways to use Gentoo, to *make money*. Several folks have pointed out that the majority of people believe that using (gentoo) linux to make money is a good idea. Daniel has been with lots of ventures in the recent past. Gentoo is his next 'bidness'. (ok that's settled?) Many folks suspect that Daniel wants control of Gentoo, to make money the way he envisions. He has not said why he would go to all of this trouble to be the technical, spiritual and financial leader of Gentoo (this makes the devs and others nervous). If fact it has been suggested in some of these discussion threads (particularly on the forums) that turning gentoo towards a profitable business model is exactly what's on Daniel's mind. Exactly what this entails is unclear. If Gentoo is to turn "commercial" then the relevance of licensing is paramount, IMHO. I only get my digs in, to get the serfs thinking about their financial future, related to Gentoo and it's future licensing issues. That the reason for the examples and the "FOTITUDE" to wake up the serfs that the GPL is hurting them the most. The GPL does not hurt large corporations. Maybe, just maybe, the GPL needs a financial test before it affects a company? (Just one idea for thought). After all, a company that grosses less than one million dollars, most likely does not have anything (code) that anyone else cannot easily generate. Gentoo is in play, do you understand this? Ever heard of T Boone Pickens? Daniel realizes that Gentoo has value. That's why he wants to return and rule in an autocratic fashion. He has not asked to be the technical guru (leader of the tribes) and hand the financial decision making to others (something a benevolent benefactor would do). He wants *CONTROL of EVERYTHING* He has insulted the devs that get in his way. Go read the 14 pages on the forum and you get a pretty clear picture, that he is not this *benevolent benefactor* that the masses believe he is. If he was, he would return, humble get on 'the team' and let folks who have experience and connections run the financial affairs of Gentoo, to the benefit of the all devs and the user alike. Why else would Daniel let the foundation sink? I sure anyone in the know could have sent in the few hundred bucks to keetp gentoo legally established. This crisis has been "orchestrated" to force a decision, plain and simple. It's going to become the fiefdom of somebody and my vote (voice) is that the serfs (users) and the devs take this puppy and decide how to make money with it (Plain and simple). If you give it back to daniel, he has greater rights legally that if the thing just dies. If it dies lots of folks can pick up the code, rename it and start a fork that can be GPL or commercial, IMHO. The GPL get's in the way, IMHO. Handing it over to Daniel with ~100% non publish control is a recipe for the serfs and the majority of the serfs to get the privilege of remaining on massa's farm, IMHO. Why else do you think the real discussions are going on behind closed doors? come on, use your brain here...... (or at least go read the 14 pages on the forum and then come back with a clue). God, I sure hope I'm wrong.............. James -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
