"Hyman Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
amicus_curious wrote:
It is still a joke. What firmware or software have you personally ever
bothered to examine, change, or share? The whole idea is preposterous.
I haven't, but at <http://www.keegan.org/jeff/tivo/hackingtivo.html>
you can find that many people have been modifying their TiVos, and at
<http://lifehacker.com/software/router/hack-attack-turn-your-60-router-into-a-600-router-178132.php>
you can find people who have read, changed, and shared GPLed software
on a router, just as the FSF envisions.
I don't read it that way. In my view it is perfectly OK to share
interesting information among hobbyist bretheren who delight in
experimenting with their stuff as in the Tivo and router discussions. I
think that this kind of activity will go on simply because it is fun for the
participants to do so. They care not for any licensing or other
restrictions.
The FSF, on the other hand, has a philosophy that essentially mandates the
disclosure of one's innovations in software applications and design. Of
course they would be laughed out of any serious consideration if that was
the end of their efforts. But they have glomed onto the idea that anyone
extending the utility of something that someone else disclosed is obligated
to disclose the extensions if the result is distributed. Now that idea has
some merit with a sort of quid pro quo that seems reasonable at first look.
If that were the only result of the GPL, it wouldn't be so obnoxious and
might have more support. The SFLC and FSF now are harassing companies who
are merely using the GPL products as is, though, and confusing the situation
to no end.
My company, and I am sure most others of any size, have a strict regulation
for product developers to submit any contemplated used of open source
software elements within out products to a legal department committee for
review and approval. The net effect is that nothing in that vein ever gets
into the shipping products due to the caveats attached by the lawyers. If
it were a truly free and open situation, such as the MIT license or freeBSD
license, I think there would be much more sharing.
Notice that it only takes a handful of people to make the improvements,
which can then be shared by many others who don't have the skills to do
it themselves. That's what free software aims to accomplish, and that
you find it preposterous says more about you than about the FSF.
Are you saying that I am a greedy sort bent on denying pleasure to the poor,
tired, and hungry masses yearning for free stuff? That is hardly the case.
I am just sick and tired of the noise surrounding what I think is an
unimportant issue. It is like watching the Congress arguing about abortion
and stem cell research while Fannie Mae wrecks the econonomy.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
