Slashdot Mirror
RMS Condemns "UnitedLinux" per-seat License
dep writes "Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."
You're free to use it any way you want, so long as you're using it in a way I want.
-... ---
I think it's pretty obvious, the whole reason why RMS is throwing a pissy fit is because UnitedLinux represents a significant loss of control for Stallman. It puts even more distance between GNU and Linux, something he has been trying desparately to glue together in the past couple years. The whole bucket of "lets call Linux GNU/Linux from now on" crap is evidence of this. He thinks the train is leaving the station, so he's going to do everything within his power to get onboard it or slow it down -- That includesd running out infront of the train and laying down on the tracks.
Theres more than one way to "get on a train", unfortunately.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
RMS is saying that if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, then distributions wouldn't be able to have restrictive licenses like this.
In other words, if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, nobody could make any money selling that software. The software economy would collapse, and hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone would be out of work.
RMS would, evidently, consider this to be a good thing.
Yes he does. He likes Slashdot's own John Katz who is also a chronic bitcher.
I think RMS is just ranting..
If someone wants to go ahead and sell GNU software, they can certainly do so, but as derivative works, the source code must be freely available somewhere, and they are legally obligated to provide free access to it if they made any changes, even for those who did not buy the software. How long would something like that last? About as long as people are willing to pay for convenience of a prepackaged software as opposed to compiling it and setting it up themselves. They can even charge a per-seat licensing if they want.... but it'd be impossible to enforce due to the free nature of the software, and anyone who would pay it is well on their way to immitating governments that spend outrageously huge amounts on things like toilet seats. This isn't illegal, it's just really, really dumb.
Further, such commercialism does not give them _ANY_ control whatsoever over the existing GPL'd code. It does give them rights over their name "UnitedLinux", however... but what's the big deal? Is RMS opposed to trademarks now?
</soapbox>
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Boo freaking hoo
If this really is the great evil and threat to the world that he thinks it is, then people just won't use it.
Honestly, I think he's only making a stink because it's big Linux news and he wants to make sure that everyone remembers his name.
There's a fine line between being an advocate and being a fanatical loon, and he sure dances around that line a lot. It would have been much more effective IMHO to calmly state that a per-seat license is a mistake and after "United Linux" is dead to point to RedHat/Debian/Mandrake/Gentoo (what have you) and say that the only way to use free software is to keep it free. Instead he takes to the pulpit and attempts to call them to repentance.
Really, pick your battles. Personally, I think this is one that has an inevitable end that will illustrate your point better than any amount of yelling and screaming.
"fuck you."
seriously. this is not a troll. i'm sick and fucking tired of hearing RMS turn every little issue into a war. so there's a linux distro that's going to charge a per-seat license. let the consumers vote with their wallets on this one. if some company ends up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this distro then they deserve to lose that money for not researching the market.
what i'm willing to bet however, is that with UL being marketed towards business use, they are going to have support out the wazoo. tech support isn't free, richard.
and its not like all of the free software distributed with the distro will magically stop being free as soon as you pay for it. you will still be able to freely distribute all of the [GPL/public domain/free license of your choice] software however you feel. that's just the way it works.
next we're going to learn about corporate america, richard. having one business sell its product to another busines and expecting money is not evil. its not like the one company hijacked the other and demanded money or anything. you don't have to buy United Linux. if you can't afford it, if you don't want to buy it, if you know there's a cheaper or better alternative on the market, you don't have to spend dime one on united linux. that takes me back to my last point, let the consumers vote with their wallets. we don't need to start a fight over something as petty as linux. sure, linux is great and all, but there's really no need to get upset over it.
i'm kinda sad i don't have any programs on the UL distro, if for no other reason that to spite RMS, who really needs to drop his "rebel without a cause" act.
-c
Think of it. Major companies, some of them, charge on per seat basis. Here's where a little psychology comes in.
There's a proper term for this scenario, but all in all, it will validate that Linux might be worth-while.
Yes, this argument is flawed, as the number of people using a software much less it's lisence doesn't make software good or bad. "Look at windows!"
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Some friendly advise from the Been There Done That department:
You clearly don't have a fucking clue about business, or business users, or business purchasers, or business administrators. Cost makes up a 10% sway on the final choice. Period.
Were this not the fact, Microsoft would not get away with fleecing 90% of the world's business users of $800 every two years for an operating system, office suite, and server licenses.
Even when there is a clearly better and cheaper alternative from a technical viewpoint, it will often not be chosen. Business attaches a high value to a high price, and is prepared to pay the price.
The support model doesn't work either. Business expects to BUY, not to license. Hence the exodus from MS at the moment. Buying makes them confident that they're getting a decent product (even when they're not) - paying for support means they KNOW they're getting shit.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
I don't see how that matters, RedHat has already shot themselves in the foot. A friend just stopped by my cube and mentioned how he tried installing RedHat on a system with less than 256MB of RAM. It wouldn't let him. It didn't even try. The kernel was originally designed to run on systems with less than 8MB of RAM. Either RedHat must not like customers or they like Microsoft's system requirements. I don't know. These companies are the commercial entities trying to run off with Linux and play big corp businessman. They won't be able to compete with the rest of the industry when real solid stable modular distributions get easier to configure and more standards compliant. Of course by then most of their customers will probably be gone anyway.
Personally I feel that you have no right to try and hoard an idea, so I will reverse-engineer your software if I want it, and I will redistribute it, because I believe in free software.
Do you use that "Preview" button when you post? Did you even read your words? Are you aware that you're advocating theft here?
I believe ideas are property. My justification for this is simple: if I have it and you don't, then it's property, and subject to the laws of economics. Five centuries of judicial tradition and codified law supports this opinion.
So what you're saying is that you think I have no right to be secure in my personal property. If we were talking about my couch, you'd be advocating theft. If we were talking about the contents of my fridge, you'd be advocating theft. If we were talking about a screenplay, you'd be advocating theft. You think just because you're talking about source code, it means you're no longer advocating theft??
Well, you know what I believe? I believe idiots should be safely behind bars. So if you'd be so kind as to post your address, I'll be right over to lock you in my basement.
What's that you say? I can't do that? Well, why not?
Debian is always WOEFULLY out of date.
Just because it is free doesn't mean it is good.
Just look at BSD!
(just kidding about that last one!)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!