On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:08:21PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
| On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 07:09 -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
| > GNUspeak:
|
| These are definitely not the views of the GNU project. They *might* be
| views of the self-styled "Linux nerds" that think they are "k00l" and
| "eleet" because they read Slashdot, but to imply the GNU project
| espouses these views is, quite frankly, slanderous.
|
| > "Give back to the community!" (which really means, "I'm the community,
| > gimme, gimme, gimme!")
|
| There may be some in the free software movement that think like this,
| but this is far from a majority view.
I doubt you have numbers to back this up (just like I doubt anyone
else has numbers to back up Nicks remark, btw).
| > "Free as in Freedom!" (but "Free as in no monetary charge" beats
| > the hell out of taking a stand)
|
| Again, Richard Stallman's famous speech makes it clear monetary charge
| is not the reason for the free software movement.
I may know the wrong people, but for me, most linux users I know are
in it for the low price and the 'fuck microsoft' attitude. They don't
really care about freedom. They have the freedom (and the money) to
pick and choose any OS and software they like, be it GPL licensed, BSD
licensed or EULA-plastered MS-code. They enjoy the finger they think
they flick at microsoft by using linux but they'll install all the
binary-only software they want in a heartbeat if it suits their needs.
RMS' free software movement may not be about finances, but both you
and I don't know what Joe Blow the Linux user is in it for. I can
only speak for myself and the people I've spoken to about this, and in
my little world, Nicks words match more closely what I've heard than
yours.
| > Free software: It's all about the price.
| > The rest of the talk about "freedom", etc. is just trying to keep
| > them from looking like cheap, greedy bastards.
| > At least for an awful lot of 'em.
|
| You know, it's fine if you hate the GPL. But I'll be damned if I just
| sit here and let you spread outright Goddamned *lies* about the free
| software movement and the people that represent it.
Note Nicks "At least for an awful lot of 'em". I've come to think the
same *in my part of the world*. It's not lies, it's what Nick
(probably, I don't want to put words in Nicks mouth) and I have found.
I know there are Linux users who're in it for the freedom. Quite a lot
are, I suppose.
| I'm not cheap. I'm not greedy. All I am after, is the freedom to use my
| computer the way I want to without Microsoft, Apple, Google, AOL, Adobe,
| Real, or other large companies being able to step in and say "no you
| can't do that, it's not in our (financial) best interests to let you".
| For me, it's always been about freedom. I would think for most of the
| free software movement that truly knows what's going on, it *is* about
| freedom.
I'm not cheap or greedy either. I try to support OpenBSD development
as much as I can. I try to test patches, I try to fix bugs (since I
usually am unable to, I write up a bugreport), I buy the releases and
t-shirts, I make financial donations and I send hardware around the
world when developers ask for it. I do work for one of the companies
you mentioned but I won't say your remark is slanderous or an outright
lie. But I do hope you can appreciate that, at least for my employer,
my view is different from yours. And for the people I know, my view is
different from yours too. We may both be in favour of software freedom
in one form or antoher, but our opinions can still be different. No
need to cry wolf when someone says something you don't like.
| While it may be seen as distateful to make modifications to BSD-licensed
| code, and place those modifications under the GPL or a similar "share
| alike" license, based upon what I understand of copyright law, it's
| perfectly legal. Even though BSD-style licenses are compatible with the
| GPL, there are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by
| releasing under the GPL or a similar license.
I'd say that it goes against the GPL. Yes, the GPL, not the BSD
license (or the ISC license), GPL. Theo already quoted the relevant
bits, but I'll quote them again :
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
Your 'perfectly acceptable social goals' which can only be achieved by
releasing code under the GPL are fine by me. I respect these goals
even though they're not my own. But why not write your own code then ?
The BSD license is permissive enough to have code released under it be
incorporated in GPL licensed software. Why must the BSD licensed code
be the vehicle for your 'perfectly acceptable social goals' ? And why,
then, can bugfixes etc. not be fed back to the original developers
under the license *they* chose, the license that grants the GPL folks
permission to use it in their codebase ? How's that for stabbing
someone in the back. Perfectly acceptable social goals. How about the
means to get to your goals, are they also perfectly acceptable ? If it
involves this sort of "according to [my interpretation of] the letter
of the license, this is legal", where is your respect for software
freedom then ?
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
