I almost care what you think about your own review. No, wait, I don't care at all. In normal reviews, the installation is only part of the article. Apparently the reviewer got so frustrated with the installation process, that he couldn't continue to tell us about the *actual game*, which is, after all, what really matters./. doesn't need more posts like this one, it needs actual reviews.
The idea of not letting people use your software unless they do so under a "free" OS is perhaps the stupidest idea to come out of the open source community yet. What worries me even more is that some people appear to think that this is actually a good idea, because it seems to me that when you start to restrict your license in this kind of way, you start to forfeit your right to criticise other licenses. How can you denounce commercial licenses for being restrictive, and at the same time build restrictions into your own? As far as I can tell, it's just another part of the worrying trend on the part of some members of the open source community who will defend linux or open source at any cost, even when it doesn't deserve it (think desktop enviroments and user friendliness), and shun anything non-free, as being, by definition, bad, without actually considering the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
I almost care what you think about your own review. No, wait, I don't care at all. In normal reviews, the installation is only part of the article. Apparently the reviewer got so frustrated with the installation process, that he couldn't continue to tell us about the *actual game*, which is, after all, what really matters. /. doesn't need more posts like this one, it needs actual reviews.
The idea of not letting people use your software unless they do so under a "free" OS is perhaps the stupidest idea to come out of the open source community yet. What worries me even more is that some people appear to think that this is actually a good idea, because it seems to me that when you start to restrict your license in this kind of way, you start to forfeit your right to criticise other licenses. How can you denounce commercial licenses for being restrictive, and at the same time build restrictions into your own? As far as I can tell, it's just another part of the worrying trend on the part of some members of the open source community who will defend linux or open source at any cost, even when it doesn't deserve it (think desktop enviroments and user friendliness), and shun anything non-free, as being, by definition, bad, without actually considering the situation.