Hi Micky. If you're going to mention Linux and the FSF, it might be
best if you were to call it GNU/Linux rather than Linux and explain
why the FSF (and Stallman in particular) prefers GNU/Linux to simply
Linux. (See What's in a Name?
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html, Linux and the
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
Tread lightly, being absolutist means you will convince no one and are
merely singing to the choir. If you are fair and balance the facts, give
credit where credit is due, open minded people will hear you.
Yep. I mean, I have two very up-front reasons not to use
A few years back, I wrote an article for O'Reilly about something I'd
noticed starting in the 1980s. Unix (and later Linux) had grown in the
direction of readable (i.e. ASCII) file formats, where MS-DOS had grown
in the direction of unreadable formats. I think this is related to what
you're
On 2/11/2014 7:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
Trust in the transparency and benevolence of Oracle, Apple, and
Microsoft is a slogan I don't foresee catching on anytime soon.
Actually, I /can/ see it catching on - as a sarcastic slogan promoting
Linux!
Mark
MBR wrote:
that anyway. But if she reads and understands those articles, she'll be
much better prepared to answer questions and carry on knowledgeable
conversations with people who might approach her after her talk.
Just remember that the article in question, like the FSF itself, is
rather
John Abreau wrote:
More precisely, RMS says that he makes no distinction between users and
developers, because developers are also users. He argues that limiting
freedom to only a subset of users is divisive and antithetical to the
concept of freedom.
That's what RMS says. The anti-Tivoization
The GPL has always denied some freedoms to developers, such as the
right to exclusively make money from their work. The anti-TiVo clause
in GPLv3 is an additional constraint, and the rarely seen Affero
license further limits developers. (Basically, the Affero license is
GPLv3 with the additional
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.comwrote:
John Abreau wrote:
Freedom only for developers is kind of like a democracy where only
wealthy landowners are allowed to vote.
As if freedom only for users is any better.
Developers are themselves users. Saying
The GPL has always denied some freedoms to developers, such as the
right to exclusively make money from their work.
Ahh, there in lies the lies that lairs lie about the GPL. The GPL does not
deny any developer the right to make money from their work. Lies! It only
denies a developer from using
Huge thanks to everyone that has thought about this and responded.
This is a wealth of information. I am not a newcomer to RMS or FSF
ideologies, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss any key items
that are relevant to a Drupal crowd or a newcomer to programming. Many
Drupal people have entered
This discussion reminds me of that time a number of years ago when RMS crashed
one of our BLU meetings to make exactly that point: when referring to Linux,
he'd prefer that we call it the GNU/Linux system rather than just Linux.
I've got a long enough history with this that I remember debating
Huge thanks to everyone that has thought about this and responded.
This is a wealth of information. I am not a newcomer to RMS or FSF
ideologies, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss any key items
that are relevant to a Drupal crowd or a newcomer to programming. Many
Drupal people have
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:38:39 -0500, Richard Pieri wrote:
John Abreau wrote:
Developers are themselves users. Saying that freedom is only for users
is the same as saying freedom is restricted only to everybody. The
The issue isn't the use of the word only. It's the use of the words free
and
Robert Krawitz wrote:
Actually, I'd say that if anything the GPL is weighted toward
users-as-developers -- ensuring that users can be developers
themselves.
At the expense of the original developers.
Try this on for size (this also addresses Mark's point and the other
Mark's failure to read
This is turning into yet another copy of the same old tired argument that
we'll never agree on. One definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the
same thing and expecting different results, and this argument certainly
qualifies as such.
I think it would be best if we drop it at this point.
On
Robert Krawitz wrote:
Depending upon the goals of the original developers. Your arguments
below appear to apply to *any* FOSS license, not the GPL
specifically. With one exception, that I'll discuss at the bottom
(and that exception is *not* the original developers at all).
No, they don't. I
Yes, developers give away some rights if they develop under GPL, but
they have the option to NOT develop for the open community and do
their own closed source efforts.
Many are not willing to do this and go open source. I know several
developers
that bemoan being 'required' to go open source,
Yes, developers give away some rights if they develop under GPL,
This is simply not true. If I develop my software and publish it under the
GPL, I give away NONE of my freedoms.
If I base my software on the work of others, then my work must align
itself with the original project. Its very easy
18 matches
Mail list logo
