As much as I love the GPL, i don't see how it is defensible to require releasing the source to your mods if you aren't even distributing the binary. I mean, that seems to violate an important element of privacy... I should be able to modify GPL code and use it on my system for my own private use without having to release it. IMHO the GPL would be going too far if it were to include such a clause. Anyway, if this were added, the GPL would then be subject to this ruling, as copyright can't possibly forbid unreleased modifications, that would be an extension via a license of the kind we all hate.
And since when do you need permission to use software?
Copyright only controls copying, and i'd say
downloading off netscape's servers is most
surely a legit form of copying, and once you
have legally made yourself a copy, there is no
law to prevent you from using it. Even if you
love copyright, you must admit that this is
the way it should be. Requiring users to implicitly sign a contract to use software is a grievous extension of copyright laws far beyond what is required and far beyond what is reasonable.
I have broadband access because i live in the dorm
at a university. I plug a 10baseT ethernet cable into the wall. I get fast download speeds. This is a good thing. Hopefully the canadians will hook up the rest of us with ethernet to your living room.
Your message was fascinating. Please tell me
more. By the way, do you think we could
display a 61 inch picture of a hamster on one of these fine screens?
Because the thin disk is dipped in a magnetic coating. No matter how thin it is, there is some magnetic goodness on one side AND some different particles of magneticossity on the other side. They are kept separate by the plastic disk.
My comment was completely on topic.
I was just stating my bemusement at the fact
that a spam/flood post up reasonably high
on the list of posts was not modded down.
Now, what i think should have been done to my post
is yes, mod it down, HOWEVER, then you should
post anonymously a reply stating something to
the effect of "you want it modded down? here ya go HAHAHAH"
All i ever get is spam. Have you ever tried
too look for warez, roms, or porn on the web
using a search engine? all you get are 'top 100'
lists that have 100 links to sites containing 500 links
to sites containing javascript that makes 5
windows pop up everytime you close one.
It is time we all get really pissed and moan and groan and bitch about this horrid state of affairs.
I don't know what you are talking about,
linux is immensly easy to use, windows is very difficult.
with windows you have to deal with nonsense like the registry, a half ass command prompt, and so forth. With linux, everything just works, and if it doesn't, i type apt-get install something-or-other, and i magically have the latest version and everything works.
This is exactly what linux needs to become fully
and completely mainstream. This is not sarcasm. Tux on every corner, massive advertising campaigns, done entirely in sidewalk chalk.
Lets continue with this, and we'll destroy the evil microsoft empire REAL SOON NOW!
Why should he suggest an alternative?
The current system is flawed. If there is no alternative, then we are doomed to life without any new music, software, books, and so on.
We cannot allow this to continue. Destroy all intellectual property laws now. There will be a brief period of confusion, but comeon, you really think the world will just give up on these things, just because ONE business model loses the government protection it needs to survive?
A new way WILL be found, but we can't pretend to know what it will be. The only way to determine what business model WILL work without intellectual property laws is to force it, by removing the laws, and watching what happens.
Of course, this will never happen, as the large corporations that run our world would have to change, and they will do everything in their power to prevent it, and the masses have been brainwashed to believe that what is 'right' for certain existing businesses is 'right' ethically, morally, and practically.
As many others have predict, I predict things will get worse and worse, then finally collapse whne it gets so bad that there is no denying that intellectual property is bunk.
Are you saying that commander taco did not
post a link to a goat sex site? what in the flying
fuck? hmm... i'm confused now. Oh well, back to pouring hot grits down natalie portman's pants.
I want a good, complete, WORKING OpenStep. Objective-C Rox my Sox. Until GNUstep is usable, i'll be sticking to python and Tkinter with pyOpenGl. anyway, the thing that bothers me about this article is that it doesn't suggest what we should use intead of X. Does the author think we should switch to berlin, write something completely new, or just give up on free software use QNX? I mean, we all know that X has many problems, but it's not as if the non-free apple and microsoft products are a viable alternative. (to those of us who care about freedom)
whats up wit dat. Perhaps I am mistaken, but i thought mp3.com was that web page where artists sign with mp3.com intead of some record company... and some of the songs are put up for free, and others you might have to pay for. If this is the case, where is the infringement? I suspect i am confused, so please correct me. btw, i did not, and never will read the article.
On a side note, i wish i was natalie portman.
Re:Hi, I'm AC. I've said nothing rational for 4 da
on
V2 OS
·
· Score: 1
I am a rabbit, patiently lathering my anus with my soft sof tongue. I feel a need for Natalie Portman and Drew Barrymore. I do not have a craving Dave Barry, however. At least not his body. His books, well maybe. In any case, Here i go running across the road.
First you complain about the unfitness of my analogy, then you go and compare downloading software with shoplifting apples. If i take apples, the store loses the apples. If I download software, the software company 'loses' the money i 'would' have paid had i bought it. Of course, if I wasn't buying it anyway, there is no loss to them. So the shoplifting analogy does not hold.
A subway is a good point. True, the subway is going somewhere whether or not I am on it, so why does it matter if i pay. The answer is twofold. A) when i am on a subway, there is room for one less person. Space is limited. Paying is one way of deciding who gets that limited space. B) the subway car is someones property. You can kick someone out of your house if you want to, so they can kick you out of the subway if you don't pay.
Note that neither of these points apply to software. Software can be enjoyed by infinitely many people simultaneously. Software runs on MY computer in MY house. No one elses property is involved. And don't go off on that 'information is property' crap.
Ok, carpenter is too general. I was thinking of the contractor type carpenter. Like the kind that comes and builds an addition to your house.
My whole point is that the proprietary business model is NOT same. It is in fact extortionary and immoral. True, the proprietary business model is better than nothing. But I will not accept it as ok until we prove that no other model is feasible. True, no single gamer could contract id software to make quake 3 arena, and pay 10 million dollars on the spot. What would make sense, possibly, is id says "we have this idea to make a good game. It will be great. We will make it when we recieve 10 million dollars." Based on quake 1 and 2, we know they likely will indeed produce a good game, given the chance. So the gaming community starts a fund raising web page. Each potential gamer who feels a desire for the game signs an online pledge stating how much he is willing to pay. Of course, nothing is actually paid until 10 million in pledges is gathered. when the time comes that 10 million dollars in pledges has been received, the pledges are called in. Everybody sends their money to the managers of this gamers consortium, who now have the 10 million dollars to pay id to write quake. Or perhaps instead of a separate consortium, id does its own fund raising.
granted, this is complex, but look at the benefits! Everybody in the world gets quake3a. nobody has restricted freedom. Copyright is unnecessary. The only serious problem i can see with this is, why would anybody pay, if all those people who don't pay get it free? Well, if you don't pay, you may not get anything. Gamers pay now, even though they could download it warezly. So they would certainly pay under such a system.
This is just one possible business model. Telethons certainly are succesful, this could be too.
If you cannot provide good arguments, and experimental evidence that proprietary distribution is the only software model by which developers can be adequately compensated, you are a bastard in my book if you make use of this evil system.
many people look at the unlimited supply of software as a problem. something to be eliminated through registration. But just think of the potential benefits! If everybody could have unlimited food, wouldn't we strive to find a business model by which everybody can recieve this food, yet the farmers still get paid? That is just the situation we are in now with software. everyone COULD have software. This is undeniably a good thing. To not even try, to just lock up software and pretend it is a physical object, thereby removing its greatest attribute, is a terrible waste.
YOUR lack of common sense is appalling. When I download software, I AM MAKING IT ON MY OWN. Or at least, hardware which I own is making it. So what if it is an exact copy of something someone else made, they still have their original. The kid is not a leech. A leech removes blood from the victim. A warez kiddie gains something, but nobody else loses. Why can't you intellectual property morons understand that?
Who said anything about the state providing and the citizen gives? All I am saying is information is not like physical objects. It cannot have monetary value because it has no scarcity. Plug that into your supply-demand equations. Infinite supply means zero price.
Why are you so stuck on the idea that the only way to be paid for programming is to sell programs? That is the one sure way to NOT make money, as elementary economics will tell you. Programming is a service. To get paid, a programmer contracts with someone who wants software. Simple as that.
Royalties are wrong for one simple reason, you get paid for sitting on your ass. Now I am not communist or anti-capitalist, but surely you must agree that evil can and does occur under capitalism. One aspect of this evil is extortion, where you give something up, but the recieving party gives nothing up in return. If I give you 10,000 dollars, I expect you to either lose 10,000 worth of property, or do 10,000 worth of work. For you to make more money over a period of years, you should either do more work or part with more property. When I buy a 10,000 3d modelling program, I am losing 10,000, and you are losing NOTHING. Supposedly this money goes towards you writing the next version. But this is not garunteed. And even if you do continue to produce, I will still have to pay for that future product whose development I already helped finance.
The proprietary software model is fundamentally wrong, and flawed. It is extremely presumptuous on your part to assume that I am some sort of communist because I see a flaw in one particular business model.
The correct way to run a software development business is to charge for the programming, plain and simple. Just like a carpenter or mechanic. Come up with an initial estimate, create the product, then charge for this service based on how hard it turned out to be. If you are very smart and can write very useful code with little effort, then you can make just as much of a killing as you can under the proprietary model, only this way it is ethical.
How does it possibly make sense for you to earn money AFTER you have already done the work. It is extremely selfish to expect compensation just because somebody recieved a benefit which would not exist without your past work. If you didn't have a contract to be paid for your work in the first place, you can't expect to be paid later. Would a mechanic walk down the street, tuning up cars along the way, then leave a bill on the windshield and expect to be paid? Of course not! That would be ludicrous! Would a teacher let anybody walk into his classroom everyday, never kicking you out or asking for money, then, after the semester is over, demand payment? It just doesn't work like that. You pay before or at the time of service. The time of service is at the development time, not at distribution time. Get your head out of the past, we no longer live in an economy of material objects. And no, it is not an "information economy" either. It is a SERVICE economy. you work and get paid. There are never any products created.
So i'm a troll for stating my honest opinion? You may disagree with me, but that does not make me a troll, and it most certainly is not cause to lower my karma. Moderators, please gain maturity.
It is abhorent that you consider pedophilia indecent, and warez as 'unethical'. You have no place on slashdot. No, you have no place on planet earth. Freedom destroying cretins should be shot on sight. Uploading and downloading files NEVER hurts ANYONE. Molesting children may be hurting them, stealing cd's from the store may be immoral and theft, but transfering bits is just sharing information, which is a natural right and must not be restricted.
You are completely wrong. And the issue is freedom, not money. If you are too unimaginative to find a way to make money without restricting freedom, then you don't deserve money. Charging for something is not evil. Restricting freedom, with the excuse of, 'i am just charging for my product' IS evil, no matter what popular opinion says.
Growing the market, that is a good point I had not considered. However, you are disregarding my point. Eliminating the possibility of non-free software might indeed mean more free software. Imagine a world where the law demands that all software must be under a free license. Software would still be a necessity. Photo-retouching people would still desire a photoshop or gimp type of program. They would therefore pay programmers to write the gimp. As the law demands all software is free, they will have thus created free software. If proprietary software was an option. Adobe might well have made photoshop and sold it. Then we would have photoshop INSTEAD of gimp. Notice how long it took gimp to even be started. Photoshop had already been around for years. This is because for many artists/photo-people photoshop and its inherent non-freeness was Good Enough. Any deterrent to creating proprietary software is actually an incentive to write free software. After all, software will be written either way.
As far as saying free when i really mean GPl, that is not at all what i meant. The goal is not gpl and only gpl, the goal is free and only free. The idea is to convert the industry into one where all those currently producing proprietary software are replaced by those producing free software. Killing proprietary software creates a need for free software. the GPL is a tool for working towards this goal. BSD licenses are not in themselves any kind of problem; the problem is that someone else can come along and use the BSD software in their evil proprietary software. So BSD licensed software are potential aids to proprietary software.
YOu must understand something. It would be better (on a philosophical level, at least) to live in a world with NO software than in a world with proprietary software. Even if there is 90 percent free software, for that 10 percent nonfree to exist there must be people using. I don't care what anyone says, nobody could possibly want to be restricted when they have the choice to be free. AS long as non-free software exists, someone is living in a limited form of slavery. The goal is primarily to get enough free software to not need any proprietary. The goal of eliminating proprietary all together is still important, however.
A BSD license potentially helps non-free software. If the goal is to have lots of free software, than the GPL is necessary. What do application frameworks have to do with anything? How can allowing non-free software to sponge off free software be a help to free software?
Why do people insist on being able to choose windows managers? Un-bundling is most certainly a good thing. Why should the window-manager be an integral part of the server? They are two completely separate programs, and should be so. That way i can run enlightenment on Xfree86 OR on accelX, or MetroX, or even whatever it is that comes with solaris, not to mention the hp-ux machines in that lab over there. if the window manager was part of the server it would kill a lot of X's goodliness.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I love the GPL, i don't see how it is defensible to require releasing the source to your mods if you aren't even distributing the binary. I mean, that seems to violate an important element of privacy... I should be able to modify GPL code and use it on my system for my own private use without having to release it. IMHO the GPL would be going too far if it were to include such a clause. Anyway, if this were added, the GPL would then be subject to this ruling, as copyright can't possibly forbid unreleased modifications, that would be an extension via a license of the kind we all hate.
And since when do you need permission to use software?
Copyright only controls copying, and i'd say
downloading off netscape's servers is most
surely a legit form of copying, and once you
have legally made yourself a copy, there is no
law to prevent you from using it. Even if you
love copyright, you must admit that this is
the way it should be. Requiring users to implicitly sign a contract to use software is a grievous extension of copyright laws far beyond what is required and far beyond what is reasonable.
I have broadband access because i live in the dorm
at a university. I plug a 10baseT ethernet cable into the wall. I get fast download speeds. This is a good thing. Hopefully the canadians will hook up the rest of us with ethernet to your living room.
Your message was fascinating. Please tell me more. By the way, do you think we could display a 61 inch picture of a hamster on one of these fine screens?
Because the thin disk is dipped in a magnetic coating. No matter how thin it is, there is some magnetic goodness on one side AND some different particles of magneticossity on the other side. They are kept separate by the plastic disk.
My comment was completely on topic.
I was just stating my bemusement at the fact
that a spam/flood post up reasonably high
on the list of posts was not modded down.
Now, what i think should have been done to my post
is yes, mod it down, HOWEVER, then you should
post anonymously a reply stating something to
the effect of "you want it modded down? here ya go HAHAHAH"
All i ever get is spam. Have you ever tried
too look for warez, roms, or porn on the web
using a search engine? all you get are 'top 100'
lists that have 100 links to sites containing 500 links
to sites containing javascript that makes 5
windows pop up everytime you close one.
It is time we all get really pissed and moan and groan and bitch about this horrid state of affairs.
I don't know what you are talking about,
linux is immensly easy to use, windows is very difficult.
with windows you have to deal with nonsense like the registry, a half ass command prompt, and so forth. With linux, everything just works, and if it doesn't, i type apt-get install something-or-other, and i magically have the latest version and everything works.
This is exactly what linux needs to become fully
and completely mainstream. This is not sarcasm. Tux on every corner, massive advertising campaigns, done entirely in sidewalk chalk.
Lets continue with this, and we'll destroy the evil microsoft empire REAL SOON NOW!
Why should he suggest an alternative? The current system is flawed. If there is no alternative, then we are doomed to life without any new music, software, books, and so on. We cannot allow this to continue. Destroy all intellectual property laws now. There will be a brief period of confusion, but comeon, you really think the world will just give up on these things, just because ONE business model loses the government protection it needs to survive? A new way WILL be found, but we can't pretend to know what it will be. The only way to determine what business model WILL work without intellectual property laws is to force it, by removing the laws, and watching what happens. Of course, this will never happen, as the large corporations that run our world would have to change, and they will do everything in their power to prevent it, and the masses have been brainwashed to believe that what is 'right' for certain existing businesses is 'right' ethically, morally, and practically. As many others have predict, I predict things will get worse and worse, then finally collapse whne it gets so bad that there is no denying that intellectual property is bunk.
Are you saying that commander taco did not post a link to a goat sex site? what in the flying fuck? hmm... i'm confused now. Oh well, back to pouring hot grits down natalie portman's pants.
I'm sure i'm not the only one with this question,
but i'm very confused here. What on earth
is Evangelion?
Yep! There was no such thing as electromagnetic waves until
ethernet was invented, because you need ethernet
for them to travel through.
I want a good, complete, WORKING OpenStep. Objective-C
Rox my Sox. Until GNUstep is usable, i'll be sticking to python and Tkinter with pyOpenGl.
anyway, the thing that bothers me about this article is that it doesn't suggest what we should use intead of X. Does the author think we should switch to berlin, write something completely new, or just give up on free software use QNX?
I mean, we all know that X has many problems, but it's not as if the non-free apple and microsoft products are a viable alternative. (to those of us who care about freedom)
whats up wit dat. Perhaps I am mistaken, but i thought
mp3.com was that web page where artists sign with mp3.com intead of some record company...
and some of the songs are put up for free, and others you might have to pay for. If this is the case, where is the infringement?
I suspect i am confused, so please correct me. btw, i did not, and never will read the article.
On a side note, i wish i was natalie portman.
I am a rabbit, patiently lathering my anus with my soft sof tongue. I feel a need for Natalie Portman and Drew Barrymore. I do not have a craving Dave Barry, however. At least not his body. His books, well maybe. In any case, Here i go running across the road.
(waits for the splat)
First you complain about the unfitness of my analogy, then you go and compare downloading software with shoplifting apples. If i take apples, the store loses the apples. If I download software, the software company 'loses' the money i 'would' have paid had i bought it. Of course, if I wasn't buying it anyway, there is no loss to them. So the shoplifting analogy does not hold.
A subway is a good point. True, the subway is going somewhere whether or not I am on it, so why does it matter if i pay. The answer is twofold. A) when i am on a subway, there is room for one less person. Space is limited. Paying is one way of deciding who gets that limited space. B) the subway car is someones property. You can kick someone out of your house if you want to, so they can kick you out of the subway if you don't pay.
Note that neither of these points apply to software. Software can be enjoyed by infinitely many people simultaneously. Software runs on MY computer in MY house. No one elses property is involved. And don't go off on that 'information is property' crap.
Ok, carpenter is too general. I was thinking of the contractor type carpenter. Like the kind that comes and builds an addition to your house.
My whole point is that the proprietary business model is NOT same. It is in fact extortionary and immoral. True, the proprietary business model is better than nothing. But I will not accept it as ok until we prove that no other model is feasible. True, no single gamer could contract id software to make quake 3 arena, and pay 10 million dollars on the spot. What would make sense, possibly, is id says "we have this idea to make a good game. It will be great. We will make it when we recieve 10 million dollars." Based on quake 1 and 2, we know they likely will indeed produce a good game, given the chance. So the gaming community starts a fund raising web page. Each potential gamer who feels a desire for the game signs an online pledge stating how much he is willing to pay. Of course, nothing is actually paid until 10 million in pledges is gathered. when the time comes that 10 million dollars in pledges has been received, the pledges are called in. Everybody sends their money to the managers of this gamers consortium, who now have the 10 million dollars to pay id to write quake.
Or perhaps instead of a separate consortium, id does its own fund raising.
granted, this is complex, but look at the benefits! Everybody in the world gets quake3a. nobody has restricted freedom. Copyright is unnecessary. The only serious problem i can see with this is, why would anybody pay, if all those people who don't pay get it free? Well, if you don't pay, you may not get anything. Gamers pay now, even though they could download it warezly. So they would certainly pay under such a system.
This is just one possible business model. Telethons certainly are succesful, this could be too.
If you cannot provide good arguments, and experimental evidence that proprietary distribution is the only software model by which developers can be adequately compensated, you are a bastard in my book if you make use of this evil system.
many people look at the unlimited supply of software as a problem. something to be eliminated through registration. But just think of the potential benefits! If everybody could have unlimited food, wouldn't we strive to find a business model by which everybody can recieve this food, yet the farmers still get paid? That is just the situation we are in now with software. everyone COULD have software. This is undeniably a good thing. To not even try, to just lock up software and pretend it is a physical object, thereby removing its greatest attribute, is a terrible waste.
YOUR lack of common sense is appalling. When I download software, I AM MAKING IT ON MY OWN. Or at least, hardware which I own is making it. So what if it is an exact copy of something someone else made, they still have their original. The kid is not a leech. A leech removes blood from the victim. A warez kiddie gains something, but nobody else loses. Why can't you intellectual property morons understand that?
Who said anything about the state providing and the citizen gives? All I am saying is information is not like physical objects. It cannot have monetary value because it has no scarcity. Plug that into your supply-demand equations. Infinite supply means zero price.
Why are you so stuck on the idea that the only way to be paid for programming is to sell programs? That is the one sure way to NOT make money, as elementary economics will tell you. Programming is a service. To get paid, a programmer contracts with someone who wants software. Simple as that.
Royalties are wrong for one simple reason, you get paid for sitting on your ass. Now I am not communist or anti-capitalist, but surely you must agree that evil can and does occur under capitalism. One aspect of this evil is extortion, where you give something up, but the recieving party gives nothing up in return. If I give you 10,000 dollars, I expect you to either lose 10,000 worth of property, or do 10,000 worth of work. For you to make more money over a period of years, you should either do more work or part with more property. When I buy a 10,000 3d modelling program, I am losing 10,000, and you are losing NOTHING. Supposedly this money goes towards you writing the next version. But this is not garunteed. And even if you do continue to produce, I will still have to pay for that future product whose development I already helped finance.
The proprietary software model is fundamentally wrong, and flawed. It is extremely presumptuous on your part to assume that I am some sort of communist because I see a flaw in one particular business model.
The correct way to run a software development business is to charge for the programming, plain and simple. Just like a carpenter or mechanic. Come up with an initial estimate, create the product, then charge for this service based on how hard it turned out to be. If you are very smart and can write very useful code with little effort, then you can make just as much of a killing as you can under the proprietary model, only this way it is ethical.
How does it possibly make sense for you to earn money AFTER you have already done the work. It is extremely selfish to expect compensation just because somebody recieved a benefit which would not exist without your past work. If you didn't have a contract to be paid for your work in the first place, you can't expect to be paid later. Would a mechanic walk down the street, tuning up cars along the way, then leave a bill on the windshield and expect to be paid? Of course not! That would be ludicrous! Would a teacher let anybody walk into his classroom everyday, never kicking you out or asking for money, then, after the semester is over, demand payment? It just doesn't work like that. You pay before or at the time of service. The time of service is at the development time, not at distribution time. Get your head out of the past, we no longer live in an economy of material objects. And no, it is not an "information economy" either. It is a SERVICE economy. you work and get paid. There are never any products created.
wtf are you talking about? All the GPL does is FORBID restriction on the code from outside parties.
So i'm a troll for stating my honest opinion? You may disagree with me, but that does not make me a troll, and it most certainly is not cause to lower my karma. Moderators, please gain maturity.
It is abhorent that you consider pedophilia indecent, and warez as 'unethical'. You have no place on slashdot. No, you have no place on planet earth. Freedom destroying cretins should be shot on sight. Uploading and downloading files NEVER hurts ANYONE. Molesting children may be hurting them, stealing cd's from the store may be immoral and theft, but transfering bits is just sharing information, which is a natural right and must not be restricted.
You are completely wrong. And the issue is freedom, not money. If you are too unimaginative to find a way to make money without restricting freedom, then you don't deserve money. Charging for something is not evil. Restricting freedom, with the excuse of, 'i am just charging for my product' IS evil, no matter what popular opinion says.
Growing the market, that is a good point I had not considered. However, you are disregarding my point. Eliminating the possibility of non-free software might indeed mean more free software. Imagine a world where the law demands that all software must be under a free license. Software would still be a necessity. Photo-retouching people would still desire a photoshop or gimp type of program. They would therefore pay programmers to write the gimp. As the law demands all software is free, they will have thus created free software. If proprietary software was an option. Adobe might well have made photoshop and sold it. Then we would have photoshop INSTEAD of gimp. Notice how long it took gimp to even be started. Photoshop had already been around for years. This is because for many artists/photo-people photoshop and its inherent non-freeness was Good Enough. Any deterrent to creating proprietary software is actually an incentive to write free software. After all, software will be written either way.
As far as saying free when i really mean GPl, that is not at all what i meant. The goal is not gpl and only gpl, the goal is free and only free. The idea is to convert the industry into one where all those currently producing proprietary software are replaced by those producing free software. Killing proprietary software creates a need for free software. the GPL is a tool for working towards this goal. BSD licenses are not in themselves any kind of problem; the problem is that someone else can come along and use the BSD software in their evil proprietary software. So BSD licensed software are potential aids to proprietary software.
YOu must understand something. It would be better (on a philosophical level, at least) to live in a world with NO software than in a world with proprietary software. Even if there is 90 percent free software, for that 10 percent nonfree to exist there must be people using. I don't care what anyone says, nobody could possibly want to be restricted when they have the choice to be free. AS long as non-free software exists, someone is living in a limited form of slavery. The goal is primarily to get enough free software to not need any proprietary. The goal of eliminating proprietary all together is still important, however.
A BSD license potentially helps non-free software. If the goal is to have lots of free software, than the GPL is necessary. What do application frameworks have to do with anything? How can allowing non-free software to sponge off free software be a help to free software?
Why do people insist on being able to choose windows managers? Un-bundling is most certainly a good thing. Why should the window-manager be an integral part of the server? They are two completely separate programs, and should be so. That way i can run enlightenment on Xfree86 OR on accelX, or MetroX, or even whatever it is that comes with solaris, not to mention the hp-ux machines in that lab over there. if the window manager was part of the server it would kill a lot of X's goodliness.