--=-av3ZZGSvEx/iHOkAjaLW
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 19:13, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> Actually buy that definition the GPL isn't free software either. Large=20
Then you didn't read the definition. I posted a very specific
definition. If you wish to post a different one and say that it doesn't
meet that, I can live with that.
> multinational corporations have taken GPL software, modified it=20
> internally and mandated that their employees use it without giving them=20
> any access to the source code or any redistribution rights. When this=20
There is not a problem with this. The GPL clearly states you may modify
as you like and not release the code as long as you do not DISTRIBUTE
it. If I am a corporation (a single entity) and I put on all the
desktops of all my employees. I have not distributed it. All of those
employees are part of my company which is a single entity.
> was pointed out by some well respected observers of the software scene=20
> like Tim O'Reilly, FSF responded with a bunch of flameage. FSF has not=20
Tim O'Reilly is not respected by many. Personally I find him neither
laudible nor offensive, but rather somewhere in the middle.
> hesitated to criticize other licenses that went a little farther in=20
> promoting "freedom 1" and "freedom 2" as disrespectful of the privacy=20
> rights of software authors.
The FSF tries sometimes too hard to be a moral absolute and many of
their members are not personable. This doesn't make them idiots or
their arguments less valid. Just makes them harder to like. =20
> The problem is there is *always* a conflict between the four points=20
> that you quoted above and the privacy rights of software authors. A=20
> balance needs to be struck and who is to say that the SUSE license=20
> doesn't come closer than the GPL?
I don't see the conflict. I am not sure what privacy rights you speak
of or the relevance. You haven't taken the time to explain them.
> As developer of GPL software, I refuse to call if 'Free Software' for=20
> reasons that that I hope to make plain, I can assure you that the GPL=20
> does not prevent your software from being hijacked for commercial gain.=20
> If that's what you want, I strongly recommend the RPL.
Exactly. My complaint was that I allow SuSE to use my code for
commercial gain. However, they will not let me use theirs for
commercial gain. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I am more than happy they can
make money off my hard work. If I wasn't I wouldn't write GPL
software. However, I don't want kids in my sandbox that don't feel the
same way. I share my toys, I expect them too as well. :)
> Please don't take this as a personal attack, Derek, but I find=20
I never take philosophy debates personally. Call my mom fat and ugly, I
might take it personally. Disagree with me on politics, I consider it a
compliment that you are willing to engage in intellectual debate.
> discussing differences in software licenses in terms of 'freedom' to be=20
> incredibly slimy. It's like when real estate salesmen always say 'home'=20
> when talking about houses. This is a world where people are still=20
> imprisoned, beaten and killed for their religious and political=20
> beliefs. Those people are being denied Freedom. To try to make some=20
> compare their situation to that of someone who is presented with a=20
> less than optimally open software license is cynical and manipulative.
I think you are taking it to far the other extreme. I think it is
important to emphasis freedom because it is important to propagate
innovation and stimulate intellect. I never equated it to world peace,
spiritual nirvana or world hunger. =20
If I was making claims that freedom in software was more important than
feeding a hungry child. Yes that is slimy. Yes that is wrong.=20
However, I never did such a thing. If this was a politics list or a
humanitarian list I would talk about those issues as well. However,
that is not the debate.
I could say I find it underhanded that companies like SuSE (and many
others) play to the community in menial ways to try to bait them that
they are not like their proprietary counterparts. The very companies
that many users are trying to flee. When in actuality they are almost
pulling a bait and switch.
That said, I do not find SuSE repulsive, useless or downright evil. I
simply stated that it was not heart warming to see them via for top
position in the Linux distribution market.
--=20
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
derek@gnue.org
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=3Ddneighbo
--=-av3ZZGSvEx/iHOkAjaLW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBACLFiHb99+vQX/88RAjo7AJ9rD1mIEliqnVsj/nzMpEmjslzPzQCeOzhJ
V/1zs41OHdPs6m61kMApDeo=
=YnMT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-av3ZZGSvEx/iHOkAjaLW--
(text/plain)