My question to RMS is.. why he thinks GPL is better license than BSD license?
BSD license is ultimately more free than GPL because it allows people to monetarize their BSD-based software products. GPL does not allow this freedom but closes it out. Why is so bad that companies and people must be prohibited from earning living from open source code? Yes, you could potentially sell your open source software but that hardly works. Some kind of products (for example games) can't be really sold support to, either.
What does RMS and other Slashdot readers think about Microsoft's recent offerings to come closer to open source model? Microsoft has Codeplex for open source code and they have made vivid and vast improvements to the Linux kernel and software stack. Is it good that open source is now working closer with Microsoft than ever before?
Slashdot Mirror
My question to RMS is.. why he thinks GPL is better license than BSD license?
BSD license is ultimately more free than GPL because it allows people to monetarize their BSD-based software products. GPL does not allow this freedom but closes it out. Why is so bad that companies and people must be prohibited from earning living from open source code? Yes, you could potentially sell your open source software but that hardly works. Some kind of products (for example games) can't be really sold support to, either.
What does RMS and other Slashdot readers think about Microsoft's recent offerings to come closer to open source model? Microsoft has Codeplex for open source code and they have made vivid and vast improvements to the Linux kernel and software stack. Is it good that open source is now working closer with Microsoft than ever before?