Hi, >From all the posts I have read on this thread, this is my own favourite. I mostly agree with what is being said by Dennis.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 07:05, dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2. The FSF is increasingly *irrelevant*. Open Source has *won*. It is > long past the days when an advocacy organization was needed to promote > it and make it acceptable. *Microsoft* bought GitHub, for heaven's > +1 > "Open source is more bug free and secure because the code is open and > anyone can look at it." Is it? > +1 > Most of what is open source these days has long since ceased being > something anyone will *pay* for. There's no reason not to open source > the code, as it no longer has monetary value. (Of course. good luck > with support...) > +5 > Want to do the entire open source ecosystem a favor? Do everything > you can to get *rid* of the GPL and use a license that doesn't put > roadblocks in the reuse of the code by other projects. Outfits like > Google are already in that camp. They create and use an enormous > amount of open source code. Nothing licensed with the GPL is part of > it. > > I have a fair bit of GPLed code installed here. I have it because it > does something I need done, and it's the only thing that does it. If > an equivalent tool was issued under a more permissive license, I'd > switch in a heartbeat. (I consider the GPL to be the worst thing RMS > did to computing.) > +5 Months ago I had been giving a thought about what is (to me) the desirable and less troublesome license one could find, and I found the MIT license the most satisfying: fair enough to recognise other's work minus the nightmare of source compatibility. Maybe you guys have a different idea or experience. > Meanwhile, I'm beyond caring about Stallman or the state of the FSF. > Both deserve whatever happens to them. > +5 Aitor
_______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
