Hi All , > >"He (re)gained the legitimate relevence in the Free and Open Source Movement by >advocating the prefix GNU before the Linux Operating System (Kernel )." > >I was referring to your quote above. What I meant was RMS did much more than >advocating "the prefix GNU before the Linux Operating System (Kernel )". Read about >things happened from GNU project starting in 1984 to around 1990 when Linus Torvalds >released Linux kernel. It would help you understand more about RMS and his >contributions. He wrote GCC and Emacs originally. > > I do know that GCC C compiler and Emacs was written by RMS. I really like the RTL concept of GCC and Embedding of Lisp under Emacs etc.
I do not have any doubt regarding the relevance of RMS in the FOSS world. I also believe that Linux kernel got too much emphasis and stallman's GNU movement provided 90% of the original software for Linux distros in the early 90s. Thus the term (re)gained. The stuff he "lost" was regained and i added a qualifier legitimate as well. Your interpretation was not correct here. > >FSF does not prefer non-copyleft license because it does not guarantee Freedoms to >every user for example, some one can take BSD licensed code and chose not to give >source code to their users. Microsoft uses BSD's TCP/IP stack in Windows, but >Windows users don't get source code. On the other hand Microsoft released drivers for >Linux kernel, because Linux kernel is under GPL (you can argue about their motivation >though) You are arguing on the "legalise" here. Fact of the matter is, some of us in this group (including me ) have not differentiated CopyLeft and FSF advocacy. The fourth freedom (freedom #3 ) cannot be maintained by BSD ( when it is optional ) and other licenses. There is a "war" going on between BSD/MIT proponents and RMS about the idea of Free Software. The first group feel that they "invented it". RMS invented CopyLeft , but Free software movement was here before. RMS is responsible for making this a global stuff touching the lives of many. > >I don't know why winelib develops heat. BSDs may be because of non-copyleft >nature, but >it shouldn't generate much heat. > I have used WineLib to port a lot of Applications from Windows to Linux. I posted a link from my blog here and it became the "POLLAND" ( Sandhesham fame ) of this group. The mention of Windows might have irritated some here ( That post made me understand the difference between ILUG as i thought and ILUG (Especially what is meant by "Libre" ). > >Our country has probably largest number of programmers, but without >philosophy, we >can't get more contributors to Free Software. > The native language of Linux is C subset of C++. It's tool chain , programming model are based on the POSIX/ANSI standards. To contribute , we need to look into these stuff along with advocacy. I think , for a country like India FOSS is a great thing to happen. There are small companies which feeds many a people in and around Kochi/Trivandrum/Calicut and other district headquaters. They would not have been in Business without FOSS software. (Think about heavy fees you have to pay to maintain the IT infrastructure licenses. if the promoters are tech savvy , they can have near zero procurement cost networks !) I think , there is difference of opinion only in the matter of Path. I think , make people use more and more FOSS software by developing it. Ask Windows programmers to choose GNU Linux as a development platform. Convince the companies about merits of GNU Linux and it's economics etc. Once FOSS reaches critical mass , we have got our promised land. I believe "LAKSHYA" is more important than "MARGA". Some believe "MARGA" is more important than "LAKSHYA". By following the latter ,"Software Parasites" can maintain the issue in the public perception to gain personal mileage. regards Praseed Pai --- On Wed, 9/22/10, Praveen Arimbrathodiyil <[email protected]> wrote: From: Praveen Arimbrathodiyil <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Libre To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 3:31 PM , Praseed Pai wrote: > > Hi All, > >> Praveen wrote >> Do you know what happened between 1984 and 1990 in Free and Open >> Source Movement? >> > What did you mean by this ?! That is a open ended question . "He (re)gained the legitimate relevence in the Free and Open Source Movement by advocating the prefix GNU before the Linux Operating System (Kernel )." I was referring to your quote above. What I meant was RMS did much more than advocating "the prefix GNU before the Linux Operating System (Kernel )". Read about things happened from GNU project starting in 1984 to around 1990 when Linus Torvalds released Linux kernel. It would help you understand more about RMS and his contributions. He wrote GCC and Emacs originally. >> Praveen wrote >> Are you saying that MIT and BSD does not come under four freedoms mantra? >> > RMS and FSF attack these liceneses based on the violation of fourth freedom. > These licenses do not mandate the propogation of derivative work. Lets start from basics, from free software definition http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. and BSD license, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php Read both of this together and see if it violates fourth freedom (or freedom 3, if you start counting from 0). Your disagreement with FSF seems to come from your mis-understanding of Free Software definition itself. And FSF lists BSD license as a GPL compatible Free Software license. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses Your confusion seems to be coming from copyleft concept. If a software is copylefted (ie, uses a license with copyleft conditions like GPL, AGPL, LGPL etc), then any modification should be accompanied with modified source code. BSD license does not have that requirement, so it is not a copyleft Free Software license. We call it a permissive Free Software license. It is very much Free Software as it has all the Freedoms. FSF does not prefer non-copyleft license because it does not guarantee Freedoms to every user for example, some one can take BSD licensed code and chose not to give source code to their users. Microsoft uses BSD's TCP/IP stack in Windows, but Windows users don't get source code. On the other hand Microsoft released drivers for Linux kernel, because Linux kernel is under GPL (you can argue about their motivation though) >> >> Did you even read Open Source Definition given by OSI? Are you sure >> OSI does not care about fourth freedom? Can you quote from OSI site to >> validate your assertion? >> > > Then, why discussion about the Mono Project , WineLib and BSD stuff generates > heat here. Pls. educate me about that. OSI does not mandate that derivative > work need > to be published ! You are completely confused about many issues. Mono is Free Software. Objection to Mono is based on Microsoft's patents on .Net technology. Knowing Microsoft's nature, it is a wise decision to keep away from Mono. Their strategy is encourage every one to use Mono and once it is common, sue businesses depending on Mono. This strategy is not a theory, but something demonstrated publicly in case of FAT file system patents. Microsoft was silent about their patents on FAT until it became so common in every portable storage device and once big companies started depending on FAT, they started going after companies like Tom Tom (they make GPS devices). I don't know why winelib develops heat. BSDs may be because of non-copyleft nature, but it shouldn't generate much heat. > I never attacked people who has got strong views on Free software. I was > trying to > convey another angle to the debate. Good. >> I think you are talking about private software (software that is not >> published) here. There is no conflict between private software and >> Free Software. Many software developed by companies like Wipro, >> Infosys are specific to one customer and they have all the freedoms. >> So they are not in conflict with Free Software. >> > Oh...that was new for me as well as news for me. So, FSF is talking about > the published software. There is nothing wrong with developing private > software > with windows , MAC OS X and other proprietory stuff ? > great ! Oh well, you are using proprietary software :) But your work may not be proprietary. > Without producing sufficient programmers , this group as well as all others > with sufficient spirit is doomed ! Our country has probably largest number of programmers, but without philosophy, we can't get more contributors to Free Software. Thanks Praveen _______________________________________________ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://mail.ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #[email protected]
_______________________________________________ Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/ http://mail.ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org #[email protected]
