Rage Callao wrote: > Yup, and you are free to modify the compiler so > that it doesn't generate that "warning bug" > now aren't you.
Another non-sequitur. I was referring to the attitude that tries to attach strings and preachy agendas along with the 'gift' of open sourced code and how it can often have impractical results. You said people may write software for other reasons besides satisfying a practical need, and I said that this would not really result in good software so I brought up an example situation. You then replied with something totally out of context. > The simple fact that the source code is freely available > means anyone can look at it and figure out how it works > hence more interoperability. Yes, and I'm not sure why you have to keep bringing up this hackneyed point. What I was referring to were provisions in the GPL that prevent it from linking to closed source code, whereas you are *FREE* to do that for BSD-style licensed code. As I have made clear countless times, I am not saying copyleft style provisions are unfair nor am I against them, only that it is very disingenuous to characterize it as giving someone more freedom. How can something with strings attached be considered more "free" than something without??? And if you are planning to respond to that, please don't resort to more lame non sequiturs. > Philosophically, I believe free and non-free software > can co-exist. But I also believe software should be free. All I am asking is: Do you believe it is ok for someone or some entity to charge money for a piece of software whose source code they do not reveal to the public... ? My answer is that people should be FREE to do that and that there is nothing morally wrong with it (even though in today's environment, it is rather unwise and likely to be economically untenable). God knows when I'll be able to get a straight yes-or-no answer out of you for that question... > The dishonesty here is how easily you can judge and > frame people who do not believe the same things as you > do as being dishonest. I've already said that I see nothing wrong or even the slightest bit dishonest about the clever concept of copyleft. I've also made it clear that even if i disagree with the idea that ALL software has to be copyleft, advocating this state of affairs (like RMS does) does NOT make someone dishonest. What _is_ dishonest is claiming that this can be characterized as giving "more freedom". That's just double talk. Now can we please dispense with the strawmen, non-sequiturs and misrepresentations of views???? > >> In fact, ideology and politics only play a minor role in OSS' > >> global success today. Stallman and Co. are essentially just > >> glomming onto the 'Net phenomenon like they did Linus' kernel. > > > > The "net phenomenon" was built on FOSS. Think about that for a minute. > > I'm very much aware of that but that is largely a non-sequitur. > > Besides, especially at the beginning of the internet boom, most > software powering it was BSD-licensed and/or derived from code > licensed under such. Think about *that* for a minute. > > Oh yeah, and ain't BSD-licensed code FOSS. Right you > are Mr. Sy. Right you are. And how does that invalidate my original point that the GPL advocates glommed onto a phenomena initially made possible by largely BSD-licensed code? The point here is not that one is better than the other, only that you have failed to recognize where credit is due. _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
