On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:06:11AM -0500, Jos? Enrique Alvarez Estrada wrote: > --- Joaquim Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi?: > > If you read the plex86 LGPL license : > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html > > you can see that you don't have to ask ANYBODY > > permission for > > you or your students to work on plex86. > > Any volunteer work is welcome. > > > > Why on earth do you think you have to ask for > > "permission"? > > Why on earth would anyone say they "wouldn't like" > > the students to > > work on it? > > This question is even more ridiculous as almost no > > one is doing any > > work on plex86 at this time. When you talk about the > > "comunity" do > > you mean the user "comunity"? Or the "comunity" of > > those discussing > > this list on itself? Do you mean the "comunity" of > > those who like to > > think they own plex86? Has anyone read the LGPL > > license? > > > > Regards, > > Joaquim > > Hi: > I particullary think it's very important to define > some of this things. Since 1999, I'm trying to > implement a mecanism to incorporate Open Source > projects on universitie's courses, because I'm a > Professor.
I rather don't talk about "Open Source". I talk about "free software", it better represents what we actually want. In this context, it's the freedom of academic people to research etc. > I think the problem is deeper that it > seems. I'll try to explain some concepts: > 1) The GNU and other similar projects come from the > academic world (Richard Stallman is an academic, for > example) Yes, software always came from the academic world. <Hurd-advocating> The Hurd is a really nice project for students IMHO. There are really a lot of things to research. </Hurd-advocating> > 2) A comercial community (i.e. RedHat, Caldera, etc. > etc. etc.) has taked the leadership of Open Source, > but (at least from my viewpoint) changing the essence > of the idea. It's actually a bit difference. With the creation of Linux and all companies around, people didn't wanted to talk about freedom anymore. Actually Linux is only under the GPL for pragmetic reasons. If you compare that to GNU, it's under the GPL because of the ideologic reasons. This is the major difference between open source and free software. I think the leadership is getting back in the hands of GNU and the FSF. The economy is turned down, companies failed, people got fired, etc. However, the people who just wrote the code for idealogic purposes or just for fun (free software people), instead of money (open source people) still continued to write code. And that's why you are seeing free software more and more. Free software will survive when open source doesn't. > 3) If the academy not respond to that, the OpenSource > idea will become another comercial empire, like > Microsoft. IBM, Sun, RedHat, etc. are very interested > to create another "software phenomena" like Windows, > but without Microsoft. Yes, I think we should stop that. I think the best way is stop talking about "Linux" and "open source" and start talking about "GNU/Linux" and "free software". The FSF is a non-profit organisation, it won't do anything just for the money. Most companies do everything for money. > What's my opinion? > a) It's necessary to convert the traditional Computer > Science's School into a "Software Fabric", like the > Capability Maturity Model says, where student's may > occupy all the "roles" and the professors becomes the > project leaders. > What's your opinion about that? Why should professers be the leaders of the actual project? I think it's good for students to learn how to manage a project. The professor should guide him with that. AFAIK GNU wants to work with the academic world to make free software better than it already is, did you already contact somebody from the FSF about this? Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
