On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 11:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 00:17, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote: > > > I don't understand why it's so popular in recent times to immediately > > single out and call someone a communist or terrorist when he or she > > stands up for his or her beliefs. > > The communist label comes from the idea of forcing people > to share things they otherwise wouldn't. ---- the communist label comes from people who are not capable of articulating a reasonable position against the goals of GPL/GNU/FSF, etc. ---- > RMS may have set > out to eliminate proprietary licenses but he hasn't accomplished > that and there's no reason to think he will succeed. ---- Success is already achieved - you may not like it, but there is a working system of GNU/GPL/FSF success...Linux is but one example ---- > And > in fact the GPL only adds restrictions so rather than forcing > people to share it prevents it it many cases. ---- You are free to put any interpretation of it's effects that you choose...reasonable people will may differ ---- > Ummm, yeah... Microsoft is pissed all the way to the bank. RMS's > work helped make one person the richest man in the world. ---- I wouldn't credit RMS, the GPL, GNU or the FSF for any of Bill Gates or Microsoft's riches...that's absurd. ---- > > > I can appreciate what you and others like you are trying to do, though. > > Since the F/OSS world is a community, what better way is there to > > mortally wound, or even destroy it, than by getting its members to turn > > in on themselves? > > There was a free software community before the GPL, and there > still is. Don't pretend that everyone has ever agreed that > the GPL restrictions are a good idea - or that they ever will. ---- RMS through various efforts and refinement of ideas with help from others 'defined' the form of the free software community as it exists today but there has always been a 'public domain' that pre-existed before RMS, etc. ---- > > jdow is confounding. But, Les really has me going for a loop. The guy > > uses GPL software left, right, and centre, but is constantly crying > > about the GPL license. > > If you had read any of the postings, you should know that my > complaint is that the GPL has done more than anything else to > keep Microsoft in business and a monopoly. ---- GPL has nothing to do with Microsoft's ability to stay in business and remain a monopoly. ---- > > I run into this all the time. For example, I know for a FACT that sales > > guys at every proprietary telecom company is running to all potential > > customers with the words "Asterisk is free, it can't be good, don't use > > it." These guys are pissed. They are REALLY, REALLY pissed. > > > > What's worse is they're also very scared. Scared people do evil things. > > There is nothing evil about having choices among many proprietary > offerings as well as whatever people have chosen to make freely > available. Consumers are perfectly capable of making their > own choices. The problem is when there is only one choice, and > the restrictive GPL is a major factor in keeping it that way > because it keeps the well tested code from being combined with > components under different licenses to make new competitive > products. ---- GPL is the assurance that the code never legally enters some companies proprietary packages. GPL means that an effort to 'embrace, extend and extinguish' can never occur (as long as we are on the Microsoft topic). I can appreciate that Les' big axe here is device drivers - he has made that clear enough over time because Linux packaging can never make use of proprietary device drivers for companies that cannot or will not release their drivers as open source. His supposition is that the GPL prevents them from doing so and it many cases, this is likely true. I remember when I really got hooked on computers in the early 80's and wanted the latest hardware, the latest software, the newest gadget, etc. Every update seemed to offer features I needed to have. In reality, that's hardly ever the case. If you want an analogy...Microsoft vs Linux is the proverbial tortoise vs the hare race and yes, the hare is out in front...big deal. Anyone who remembers the BSD TCP/IP code stack in Windows NT knows why some people prefer GPL license over BSD type licenses...it absolutely prevents the 'embrace, extend, extinguish' of donated code making its way into proprietary software. yeah, so it slows down development of device drivers...big deal Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
