Hi Sandip,
This whole issue, as you pointed out, is quite confusing. Here's my
take on the various entities involved with the movement:
GPL: The GPL only restricts the freedom to take away rights to source
from anyone. In other words, if you put a piece of software under the
GNU General Public License, no one will ever be able to distribute
that software (whether as original or modified) without also
distributing or undertaking to distribute the source code. This is
sometimes referred to as a `viral' license, since if you use a piece
of GPL software as a base for your project, you will be forced to make
the whole project GPL.
Linus: Linus Torvalds, the author of Linux, has a pragmatic approach
towards the GPL. He prefers software to be GPL, but doesn't have
anything against commercial software as long as it does what he wants
it to do. He has no issues with people bundling commercial software
with Linux.
RMS: Richard Stallman, the father of the free software movement and
the primary author of the GPL, is more rigid in his stance towards
software. He believes that all software should be free (i.e. GPL'd),
and tries to stamp out commercialisation of software wherever he can
find it. RMS, for instance, is against RedHat and O'Reilly because
they make successful (partly) proprietary products for the free
software world, and this, he feels, stifles the creation of successful
non-proprietary products.
Commercial: It may seem like a contradiction, but free software is
commercial! You can sell it, customise it, enhance it, support it or
modify it for money. Hence, once again, the ``free'' in ``free
software'' refers to freedom (i.e. the freedom to have the source and
to do anything you like with it) rather than lack of price. Of
course, free software usually tends to be unpriced also, but that is
changing.
Anand Babu: Is a rabid RMS-ite. AB believes strongly in what RMS
says, and is not willing to be flexible in his position towards
commercial software. Correct me if I'm wrong, Babu, but doesn't some
of your anger against Linus come from his calling Hurd ``bloated,
slow... much too complex''? But Babu's opinions are important since
it is people like him with fire in their bellies who try to change the
world -- unlike the other person mentioned under :-)
Me: Am also a rabid RMS-ite. However, I'm willing to let other people
do whatever they want with their software, i.e. commercialise it, make
it proprietary, etc. I'd /advise/ and /push/ them towards making it
open, but I believe that it's finally their choice. Software that I
write, of course, is GPL'd in the true tradition of the free software
movement.
So have you got any answers to your questions? Probably not... this
whole movement is one of unanswered questions. Of course, unanswered
questions are what lead to progress. What is right? What is wrong?
Is what IBM and SGI doing to the free software movement OK? What
about RedHat? So help me God, I don't know! And I'd look with
suspicion at anyone who claims that s/he knows all the answers.
Regards,
-- Raju
>>>>> "Sandip" == Sandip Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sandip> I am still a bit confused with the whole point of this
Sandip> discussion. We all want serious business to be done with
Sandip> Linux. Is it only that organisations are only expected to
Sandip> USE Linux and rather not make any money out of it?
Sandip> It is ok, if consultants charge money for linux advice,
Sandip> companies charge money for letting others access their
Sandip> Web/Mail/ servers running Linux etc. if ISP's make money
Sandip> selling their service based on Linux. Aren't this all
Sandip> commercial services based on Linux?
Sandip> By that logic isn't distribution/redistribution again a
Sandip> service? So what if packaging is done to distribute it
Sandip> better.
Sandip> What about companies like IBM, SGI which sell 'total
Sandip> Linux' systems and make money based on it? Or is it
Sandip> something else? Is it that people don't want such
Sandip> companies(like RedHat) to grow too rich, or maybe too
Sandip> influential to change the direction of the Linux movement.
Sandip> Sometimes I suspect that half the anger against even M$ is
Sandip> because it has been too successful(atleast in the get rich
Sandip> part...see? even I keep falling in the trap ;)
Sandip> If we seriously want Linux to catch on... we should at the
Sandip> very least don't mind people doing good business
Sandip> with/for/along it.
Sandip> Or am I seriously, sickenly wrong somewhere??????????
Sandip> - A very confused Sandip
The mailing list archives are available at
http://lists.linux-india.org/cgi-bin/wilma/linux-delhi/
