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

Re: [ossig] Freedom Fighters



On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 12:52 +0800, Dinesh Nair wrote:
> On 01/16/06 02:17 Ditesh Kumar said the following:
> > The thing people forget about the GPL is that it's a document dealing
> > with human Freedom. Eric doesn't get it, because he doesn't see creating
> > software in those terms, he just wants to have more efficient and better
> > software and thinks that allowing others to see and modify the source
> 
> right, like creating better software is not the job and duty of a software 
> engineer. oh well.

You are implying that GPL does not allow you to create better software,
and that other free software licenses such as the BSD do a better job at
this. Considering that a majority of code in linux distributions are
under the GPL, I would suggest you either substantiate the statement or
withdraw it as the evidence clearly stands against you.

> > originally FreeBSD. I'm sure since then it's been heavily modified, I
> > know just as one example it's been made SMP-aware to cope with multiple
> > processors. The reason few people know this is not one line of those
> > changes (to my knowledge) has been contributed back to the FreeBSD
> > effort. Open Source, in the form of the BSD license, was certainly weak
> 
> he knows wrong. netapp has recently contributed a port of FreeBSD for the 
> Xen virtualization framework, and this is just in recent times. they've 

Link?

> also contributed code to the NFS implementations and iianm, were also the 
> initiators of NFSv4 along with other vendors. i believe that the CTO of 
> netapp is also the ietf chair for the NFS working group.

> and jeremy refers to SMP capability when FreeBSD has been SMP capable for 
> quite a while already. i'm confused by this implied argument that NetApp 
> created SMP capability on FreeBSD and kept it silent.

Link? Previous discussions on this list leave me in doubt of the
veracity of your statement.

> > I'm going to put my trust in people like Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen,
> > Georg Greve (of the Free Software Foundation Europe) and Bradley Kuhn,
> 
> of the four names mentioned above, i've had personal experience with 
> two[1], rms and georg greve, and the one common thread running thru both is 
> the insistence that all things should be free software and not open source. 

I don't see what is the problem here. The definition of free software
includes the modified BSD license so that should keep you happy.

> this unwillingness to accomodate different methods and goals while still 
> fulfiling the same underlying principles is what usually turns me off from 
> the GPL fanatics.

Care to list out the different methods and goals of yours as well as
your justifications that the FSF doesn't wish to adopt?

> many have called me a BSD fanatic, but what they dont see is that it's more 
> of the GPL pushing me away than the BSD drawing me in.

Make up your mind - are you against free software or only the GPL. GPL
is only a part of free software, which is an ecosystem of a much larger
set of license - which also include your poison of choice, the modified
BSD license.

> we live in a global ecosystem of software populated by many people with 
> differing views on software development, business models, propogation 
> mechanics and ideals. like it or not, the commercial software model is 

And the free software model predates them all - as jeremy has pointed
out in his low point series and as you have also pointed out to me on
several occasions.

> still dominant inspite of the inroads open source has made over the last 
> decade. adopting an aggressive stance while you're the weaker party will 
> not work here, which is why i prefer the term open source and the 
> principles of folk like brian behlendorf, bruce perens and eric s raymod 
> who've advocated a more inclusive policy which eases the transition from 
> the commercial closed soure model to an open source model, commercial or 
> noncommercial.

Is that so? As far as I can see, FS has been widely used in business
models. You are implying that FS doesn't work for easing the transition
from a closed source model - care to demonstrate with examples?

> > GPL, the legal basis for our community. They are the ones out there
> > giving talks to the public, working with legislators, creating the
> > framework that allows us programmers to safely write our code and
> > release it in what would otherwise be an incredibly hostile and
> > predatory environment for Free Software.
> 
> people who do not believe solely in the GPL but in open source in general 
> do the same things above as well, so this is not the sole domain of GNU/GPL.

Once again, you're mistaking GNU (the project to create a free operating
sytem) with the GPL (a free software license) with the FSF (a foundation
to promote free software). The FSF works to protect our freedoms even
for those not concerned with their own freedom.

Yes, people who do not believe in GPL work to protect the freedom too
but believing in a license and believing in freedom are not necessarily
congruent as you imply.

Ditesh


---------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message