Slashdot Mirror

That's like choosing the piece of shit that stinks slightly less and calling it perfume. The Start menu is terrible because the programs are not organized. Unlike this.

[free software licences have] onerous restrictions on software creators.

These restrictions are not "onerous" if you are concerned software/user freedom, which they are there to protect.

You are welcome to argue about who deserves more 'freedom'. However, when the people who produce the software are denied by a license the freedom to determine the future of the software - be it its price, whether it can be redistributed or not, whether it can be altered or not, and more freedom is given to people who had nothing to do w/ creating it in the first place, people can be excused for thinking that you are out to give the latter set of people a potentially infinite ROI, while at the same time, putting a practical cap on the ROI that the former set of people may earn.

the Open Source movement, rather than the FSF, is the reason we have such major open source software

This goes without saying. I'm sure the free software movement, rather than the OSI, is the reason we have such major *free* software.

That's cute, but I wasn't engaging in a semantic definition. All the major software titles I listed above that do make their source code available to their users (regardless of whether you call them 'free' or 'open' - we need to come back to that in a bit given the semantic contortions that RMS liberally indulges in) adapted licenses that the OSI has no problems calling 'Open'. Even though some of them are listed as 'free' by the FSF, it goes on to urge people not to use those 'free' licenses if they are incompatible w/ the GPL.

if you notice, most [major open source software] are not GPL

That is because they are probably not as concerned with software and user freedom as they are being able to make money from their software. Unless you believe these projects were ill-informed when making a choice about licensing, it follows that their license choice reflects their goals, which are not as aligned with those of the free software movement as they are the open-source movement. That's all.

Not just that, but there's also the fact that the people who work on those projects need to survive on that work, not other activities that they may or may not have time to do. If they were to respect freedom 2 of the GNU, they'd automatically limit the number of customers that they can actually make money from, while at the same time, their customers may potentially become their competitors. If you think otherwise, do explain that if I were to hypothetically sell a 'free' software title - let's say GPL3ed and all priced @ $100.00 - to customer C, and C were to distribute it @ $0.00 to customer D, would the FSF consider that a lost sale for me, or no? Or would you consider that if it weren't sponged off me, D wouldn't have been interested in using it in the first place?

Linus has decided not to make his kernel GPL3.

This has more to do with not being able to obtain permission from the many, many contributors.

No, he is explicitly on record as saying that he personally doesn't want to convert any of his code . It's true that in a subsequent interview in 2007, he conceded that had GPL2 not been there, he 'could see himself use GPL3'. But nowhere did he say that getting permission from many, many other contributors was the reason - his reason was that he preferred GPL2.

Android is released under an Apache license and not GPL 2 nor 3.

Parts of Android, like the Linux kernel, *are* released under the GPL.

Ok

Unlike the FSF, [the OSI] is not

I was replying to a comment on Linus' level headedness and perception. His perception was IMO erroneous regarding the bitkeeper licence issue. Linus, in his own words: instead of looking at huge plans for the future, I tend to have a rather short time frame of 'issues in the next few months'. Microsoft, however, does long term planning and have by their public statements proclaimed themselves to harbour animosity towards FOSS. Level headedness isn't the issue, neither is the existence or otherwise of closed source software in the story, Linus' stand isn't perceptive, it's the exact opposite.

I suggest you listen to Linus' words and take heed. The man is a visionary.

He is? You'd better let him know:
http://www.efytimes.com/efytimes/21160/news.htm
Linus: I've never been much of a visionary -- instead of looking at huge plans for the future, I tend to have a rather short time frame of 'issues in the next few months'.

Linus does not consider the long term consequences of actions to the extent necessary to anticipate the moves of a player like Microsoft. That puts him at a severe disadvantage to any malicious long-term thinker. Whether Microsoft is malicious to FOSS ought to be abundantly clear by now from their own public statements.

I would be happy to recommend a good voice-to-text program to RMS.

I am confused why people espouse this "RMS is special but Linus is not" nonsense.

Well, IMO Richard is a genius and Linus is a good programmer. Big companies pay CEOs who can see 10 to 20 years into the future and make coherent plans about it tremendous salaries. We have one who works for free. When he founded the FSF, he saw the path that proprietary software would lead us down and told us about it. Few believed him then. It's taken 20 years for many of us to appreciate his vision.

Perhaps Linus' language was undiplomatic in his criticism, but his most recent comments are rather conciliatory.

In other words, I just think the GPLv3 is too petty and selfish.

You have said previously that your job is to convince companies of the benefits of open source. Has it occurred to you that the bizarre RMS cult-of-personality, into which you appear to have bought, is one reason why companies need so much convincing?

And, before you attempt to criticize me as a corporate shill (as you did that anonymous coward above), you should be aware that I work for a not-for-profit organization.

Bruce

This one is not (yet) slashdotted:
http://www.efytimes.com/archive/144/news.htm