On 12/6/06, Andy Sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What other reason would there be to write a piece of software?
To spread a political idea? I'm afraid a piece of software
written with that primary goal in mind is not likely to be
very succesful.
Case-in-point: There was an extremely annoying and 'preachy'
GCC Objective-C message relating to the usage of the #import
directive. The so-called warning will bug you no end by emitting
the same excessive 4-5 lines of philosophical sermonizing of
why using that directive is not wise. This is NOT egoless
programming.
Yup, and you are free to modify the compiler so that it doesn't
generate that "warning bug" now aren't you.
Don't get me wrong, I do prefer open to closed source. But
look at the sentiments behind provisions of the GPL that
expressly make it more difficult for code under that license
to interoperate with code that is closed.
To say that this is about promoting freedom (rather than taking
away from it) is double-talk. Something that commies are famous
for.
If you lay-off the name-calling for a bit we could actually talk about
the ideas themselves. Your argument above falls flat on its face for
numerous reasons. The simple fact that the source code is freely
available means anyone can look at it and figure out how it works
hence more interoperability. However, if you mean, that closed-source
programmers can't take GPLed code and create closed-source programs
with it, you're right. Its quid pro quo.
Your comment on freedom smells of a BSD vs. GPL flame war. If you
don't like the GPL then you shouldn't be on a Linux(GPLed) mailing
list but on a BSD one.
> First of all, writing is an "act" hence a service. If someone
> were to hire you to write a piece of software you are essentially
> rendering a service. To require someone to render a service for
> free is illegal.
I'd rather not get into some of the dodgier issues stated above,
so let's just agree that it all boils down to the concept of
'ownership' of code.
What's dodgy about the illegality of involuntary servitude?
No I don't agree with you that it boils down to the ownership of code.
If you know your FOSS you would already know that ownership isn't the
issue.
A 'commie', however, would be someone who believes that the
above is NOT ok solely out of "principle". And if you don't
believe Stallman and Co. are of this mindset, you are either
being deliberately dishonest or you fail to read their
manifestos properly (bad disciple, bad...).
Ok, again with the name-calling. If the sole reason for this part of
your post is to ridicule me in a public mailing list then my
congratulations to you Mr. Sy. You have proven to every discerning
member of this mailing list that you are truly indeed an righteous
man. Spank me.
Going back to the point you raised, yes Mr. Sy, I have read all their
manifestos properly. Philosophically, I believe free and non-free
software can co-exist. But I also believe software should be free.
Now, while I may categorically disagree with that sentiment, I
don't necessarily feel the need to convert or change the minds
of such people.
What I really do have a *SEVERE* beef with is when such people
start appropriating the meanings of everyday words like 'freedom'
in a dishonest attempt to ennoble themselves and frame it in
terms of a war between 'good' and 'evil'.
The dishonesty here is how easily you can judge and frame people who
do not believe the same things as you do as being dishonest.
Freedom may be an everyday word to you Mr. Sy however I don't share
that sentiment. Many people live and die by that word Mr. Sy because
that word ensures that I can say whatever I want no matter how
*SEVERE* your beef with it is.
>> In fact, ideology and politics only play a minor role in OSS'
>> global success today. Stallman and Co. are essentially just
>> glomming onto the 'Net phenomenon like they did Linus' kernel.
>
> The "net phenomenon" was built on FOSS. Think about that for a minute.
I'm very much aware of that but that is largely a non-sequitur.
Besides, especially at the beginning of the internet boom, most
software powering it was BSD-licensed and/or derived from code
licensed under such. Think about *that* for a minute.
Oh yeah, and ain't BSD-licensed code FOSS. Right you are Mr. Sy. Right you are.
--
RAGE CALLAO
Free Software :: empower :: educate
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
plug@lists.linux.org.ph (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
