[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [K12OSN] Scary article from Russia (w/o love)



I certainly understand part of your point of view, but not the coercion part...

You don't like the GPL because it claims to defend freedom?  That's fine, you may define the word however you like, and you have the right to be offended at it's "misuse".

What point is there in Linux's existence, in your perspective?  What is it's key differentiator?  Is it just another MacOS or another Windows, or is there something more to it?  Is Linux an integral part of the Free software "thing" or is it just a free (as in cheap) operating system?

For my part, I'm pretty sure there's an important principle being protected by the GPL.

I'm really confused about your last statement, with regard to your use of the word "forced".  You said: 
> Or, you can simply be forced to continue to support the proprietary 
> monopoly business because the GPL restrictions prevent covered works 
> from being improved to a point where they are competitive.  Like 95%
> or 
> so of the population does...
[...]
> With the GPL, only one person actually gets the freedom to choose. 
> Everyone else has to follow its restrictions which prevent any other 
> choices.
[...]

I think you're just plain wrong on the first one.  Many GPL products are beautifully done and very competitive.  Let's take Red Hat, for example.  They seem to be providing a worthy product.  Same with Ubuntu and OpenSUSE.  But that's where we have that difference of opinion.  You seem to think GPL'd products suck, because of the defining principle, and I think they rock, for exactly the same reason.  I ~like~ choosing my desktop environment.  I don't want KDE or GNOME to fold into the other.  I like the fact that Ubuntu, Fedora, and OpenSUSE all smell and taste a little different.  I ~like~ the fact there are some restrictions on packing in proprietary code.  I also like the fact that I can buy and install and run all the proprietary code I want, after the fact.  I like the fact that Linux is Linux, and that it is not MacOS or Windows.  I don't want it to be either one.  And if winning the desktop were to require "selling out" on core principles...  Let me put it this way:  If all Linux was, was freeware, or public domain, if authors couldn't protect their work from proprietization, if it ever goes there, Linux has lost, even if Microsoft goes away and the thing that is then called Linux has 85% (or 95% or whatever it is).  Linux is Free and protected to remain so.  If you want something "free-er", by your definition, try BSD or something else.  There is a lot of product out there that is freeware/public-domain/LGPL/etc...

I also think you're mistaken about the 95% of the people that use Windows.  They're not forced ~and~ they don't choose intentionally.  They just take the default, by and large.  Most people want a McComputer, and they don't care about the computer or the OS.  They don't realize (or care) that cars and McComputers are fundamentally different, in that car sales are competed for, where OS sales are (by and large) not.  I'd be happy to see stats that prove me wrong, though.

And last, how does an author's choice of license restrict anyone but those that agree that his product is worth using, under that license?  Do people 

--David

----- "Les Mikesell" <lesmikesell gmail com> wrote:

> David L. Willson wrote:
> > Which part of this system do you disagree with?
> 
> The part that misrepresents GPL software as 'free' when in fact it is
> 
> very restricted in terms of how it can be improved.
> 
> > There are lots of other licenses for authors to choose, many of
> which do not include preservation of freedom as a term of use.
> 
> Yes, other licenses do not misrepresent restrictions as freedom.
> 
> >The GPL is not a mandate, it's something that makers of Free software
> choose to use to > With the GPL, only one person actually gets the freedom to choose. 
> Everyone else has to follow its restrictions which prevent any other 
> choices.  Note the contrast with commercial licenses which allow you
> to 
> choose components individually and combine as you like as long as you
> 
> individually meet their terms.protect their work.
> 
> And it makes sense if your intent is to prevent improvements that 
> compete with your own offering.  But restricting improvements has and
> 
> continues to hurt everyone else.
> 
> > Authors have the right to choose the license that best protects
> their work and reflects their social values.  Would you deny that
> right?
> 
> Of course license restrictions should be up to the authors within the
> 
> constraints that copyright and patent laws apply.  But those 
> restrictions don't have to be misrepresented as freedom when in fact 
> they are just restrictions.
> 
> > Do you make software?
> 
> I tried to give some away once, but was prevented from sharing it 
> because it included a GPL component and also needed other libraries
> that 
> were redistributable at no cost but under terms that did not match the
> 
> GPL restrictions.   But, I'm more interested in using software than 
> making or distributing it.
> 
> > Finally, as a user, if you disagree principally with the GPL, you
> can choose to use BSD, or another, more liberally licensed kernel.
> 
> Or, you can simply be forced to continue to support the proprietary 
> monopoly business because the GPL restrictions prevent covered works 
> from being improved to a point where they are competitive.  Like 95%
> or 
> so of the population does...  I'm seriously convinced that Richard 
> Stallman has done more to keep Microsoft rich than anyone else.  Look,
> 
> for example at the effort he made to hold java development back while
> MS 
> has advanced .net.
> 
> > The wonderful thing about this sector is it's Freedom.  Freedom to
> choose, in this case.
> 
> With the GPL, only one person actually gets the freedom to choose. 
> Everyone else has to follow its restrictions which prevent any other 
> choices.  Note the contrast with commercial licenses which allow you
> to 
> choose components individually and combine as you like as long as you
> 
> individually meet their terms.
> 
> -- 
>     Les Mikesell
>      lesmikesell gmail com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> K12OSN mailing list
> K12OSN redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
> For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]