Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 18:45:14 UTC 2008
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> This is fundamentally contradictory. If you have to choose between
>>> these two, you're choosing between promoting either FS or OSS.
>> It is a problem the GPL creates.
> That's a red herring. The GPL has *zero* to do with it.
> If we didn't have the GPL, or even copyright law, the movements would
> still have different values and goals. You're just confusing yourself
> by bringing the GPL into the picture, and you might be confusing
> others in the process.
The GPL, by not permitting redistribution unless restrictive terms on
all components can be met, is the only license that I am aware of that
causes this problem. I suppose there could be others, but the GPL is
the well-known instance.
>>> I.e., you're promoting one in detriment of the other. How can that
>>> be promoting FOSS?
>> How would you propose dealing with it when your purpose is to promote
>> FOSS and as many choices as possible, then?
> I've already explained that "prmoting FOSS" doesn't make sense for
You've said that. Your so-called explanation makes no sense to anyone
who does not accept your misguided assumptions.
> How about you step back and analyze what you mean by "promoting FOSS",
> like I have?
For me it means using/reusing/improving freely-available, well-tested
code in all possible situations. Everybody wins. Under certain limited
conditions, it even works with GPL encumbered code.
>> I believe they are misguided in applying restrictions that make it
>> impossible to use GPL code in many situations.
> Red herring and false premise.
Sorry, but I happen to believe my opinion is as valid as yours. Present
some evidence that not permitting code reuse/redistribution/improvement
has ever helped anyone if you want to get anywhere with that argument.
>>> The OSS movement cares about popularity and convenience, so an
>>> esential part of this movement is to accept, endorse and promote the
>>> use of software that denies users their freedoms, when that is
>>> convenient and can lure in more users.
>> 'Luring' someone is a strange concept here. You seem to imply that
>> someone who has a choice to use a piece of software does not have the
>> same choice to replace it with another piece later.
> That's correct, and that's precisely where the power that the Free
> Software movement opposes stems from.
>> That's not the case and even if it were, the correct solution would
>> be to encourage the production of as many other choices as possible.
>> People always have the freedom to choose and change.
> Except when they're lured in, and only realize they're trapped when
> it's too late or too difficult to escape. CQD.
It is only difficult to escape when equal/better choices don't exist.
One of the reasons those other choices might not exist is that licenses
that only permit code re-use under restrictive conditions like the GPL
have prevented them from being created.
>>> Do you see that a
>>> step forward for one amounts to a step backward in the other?
>> Not at all. The more choices you have the better. You can only go forward.
> You're evaluating the scenario under your own system of value and
> prejudices, not under the two very different systems of values of the
> two movements I have described.
Yes, of course I use my own values. I view those movements as cultish
and illogical and having no evidence to support their claims.
> IOW, it's circular logic, and the
> conclusions are unrelated with the question or the premises.
There's plenty of evidence for the choices that a non-restrictive code
base like the original TCP/IP implementation can produce, but no
equivalent for GPL restrictions.
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-list