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."

Comments

UnitedLinux = A Threat To Stallman's Ego

[Bowie J. Poag]

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.

...*splat*...

Cheers,

Re:Is there anything that RMS likes?

[Vodak]

Yes he does. He likes Slashdot's own John Katz who is also a chronic bitcher.

Re:He's right...

[mark-t]

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>

Re:Surely a step backwards

[sporty]

You realize, it adds validity to linux if they do try it, no?

Think of it. Major companies, some of them, charge on per seat basis. Here's where a little psychology comes in.

1. Major companies do per-seating purchases.
2. Major companies release good software.
3. Good software is worth looking at.
4. There's a distribution that does a per-seat lisencing.
5. UnitedLinux might be something good, otherwise, why act like it is worth while.

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!" ;)

Re:Surely a step backwards

[Twylite]

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.

Re:The economy would expand if software were free

[foobar104]

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 old and "woody"

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

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!)