David Kastrup wrote: [...] > benefitting the general public Hey dak, care to address the following (2nd one below) Dan's comment regarding the "public"?
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/an-open-source-ceo-on-the-gplv3/#comments ------ Crosbie Fitch // Oct 18th 2006 at 4:03 am If you change restrictions into protections you can see where the agenda is. The only people upset by more protections (of the publics freedom) appearing in the GPL are those who would like to take the publics freedom away. Free software liberates the public to enjoy published GPL software. The P stands for public. Published GPL software belongs to the public, and they shall not be restricted. If you want to control your own GPL software, dont publish it. If you still believe in copyright and want to restrict the publics use of the non-free software that you publish, well, just use the magic sigil (C) with no license. Dan Lyons // Oct 18th 2006 at 9:08 am Well in your zeal to protect the public you are threatening to screw up an operating system that some of us members of the public enjoy. And the public doesnt own this code if we did you guys couldnt jerk everyone around. The code is owned and controlled by RMS, who has convinced developers (thank God not Linus Torvalds) to sign over their copyright to him. Thats not public ownership. Thats RMS hoarding code and then demanding a price for it (by dictating the way others behave). In other words, its exactly the behavior that RMS rails against in others. I cant believe you need to have this explained to you. (I suspect that you dont need it explained.) Anyway, as for making life even more difficult for Linux distributors, hey, fantastic work, dude. Which public are you protecting? Face it, this has nothing to do with the public, since 95% of the public are happy with Windows and 3% more are happy with Macs. This is about the public as defined by RMS and a few others. This has to do with the narrow agenda of a few radicals led by RMS, with the ultimate goal of creating a world where all software can be freely copied. In such a world companies could not make money selling software. Fair enough; thats what RMS is after. Why do you guys never dare say this? Its in the GNU Manifesto. But you always have to play this coy doublespeak game about how youre actually pro-business and pro-capitalism. Please. If you want to play Che Guevara and embrace an anti-private property agenda, at least have the courage to admit it. Whats next? Will you protest outside bookstores because those poor books are being held prisoner on the shelves, penned up and kept in cardboard boxes in dank warehouses? Set the books free! The public has a right to free books! The public also has a right to free movies, and free music! End the tyranny of Blockbuster movie prisons, and shopping mall music stores, holding discs captive! Storm the Virgin Megastore! And restaurants! Chefs are keeping recipes to themselves! Free the recipes! Free the ingredients! It is a crime against humanity to hoard food in restaurant kitchens while the public is hungry! Chefs are making obscene amounts of money by hoarding food and charging high prices for meals. But they cannot help their neighbors! Free the carrots! Free the steaks! (Of course you cant do this because RMS didnt create these books, movies, music or recipes; and he hasnt convinced any authors, musicians, filmmakers or chefs to sign their rights over to him.) Oh, but youre all about protecting the public. Youre the heroes of the people. And all those new open-source companies like ActiveGrid, Zimbra, and so on, who wont touch the GPL with a 10-foot pole, theyre just evil and enemies of freedom and out to hurt the public. Is that it? Dude, you guys are absolutely full of you-know-what. ------ regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
