Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
This is fundamentally contradictory. If you have to choose between
these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS.
It is a problem the GPL creates.
That's a red herring. The GPL has *zero* to do with it.
If we didn't have the GPL, or even copyright law, the movements would
still have different values and goals. You're just confusing yourself
by bringing the GPL into the picture, and you might be confusing
others in the process.
The GPL, by not permitting redistribution unless restrictive terms on
all components can be met, is the only license that I am aware of that
causes this problem. I suppose there could be others, but the GPL is
the well-known instance.
I.e., you're promoting one in detriment of the other. How can that
be promoting FOSS?
How would you propose dealing with it when your purpose is to promote
FOSS and as many choices as possible, then?
I've already explained that "prmoting FOSS" doesn't make sense for
starters.
You've said that. Your so-called explanation makes no sense to anyone
who does not accept your misguided assumptions.
How about you step back and analyze what you mean by "promoting FOSS",
like I have?
For me it means using/reusing/improving freely-available, well-tested
code in all possible situations. Everybody wins. Under certain limited
conditions, it even works with GPL encumbered code.
I believe they are misguided in applying restrictions that make it
impossible to use GPL code in many situations.
Red herring and false premise.
Sorry, but I happen to believe my opinion is as valid as yours. Present
some evidence that not permitting code reuse/redistribution/improvement
has ever helped anyone if you want to get anywhere with that argument.
The OSS movement cares about popularity and convenience, so an
esential part of this movement is to accept, endorse and promote the
use of software that denies users their freedoms, when that is
convenient and can lure in more users.
'Luring' someone is a strange concept here. You seem to imply that
someone who has a choice to use a piece of software does not have the
same choice to replace it with another piece later.
That's correct, and that's precisely where the power that the Free
Software movement opposes stems from.
That's not the case and even if it were, the correct solution would
be to encourage the production of as many other choices as possible.
People always have the freedom to choose and change.
Except when they're lured in, and only realize they're trapped when
it's too late or too difficult to escape. CQD.
It is only difficult to escape when equal/better choices don't exist.
One of the reasons those other choices might not exist is that licenses
that only permit code re-use under restrictive conditions like the GPL
have prevented them from being created.
Do you see that a
step forward for one amounts to a step backward in the other?
Not at all. The more choices you have the better. You can only go forward.
You're evaluating the scenario under your own system of value and
prejudices, not under the two very different systems of values of the
two movements I have described.
Yes, of course I use my own values. I view those movements as cultish
and illogical and having no evidence to support their claims.
IOW, it's circular logic, and the
conclusions are unrelated with the question or the premises.
There's plenty of evidence for the choices that a non-restrictive code
base like the original TCP/IP implementation can produce, but no
equivalent for GPL restrictions.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
