Very well stated. This pooint was brough up last week at the World Bank OSS event. The GPL, it seems to me, is as restrctive as any proprietary license. But, really, who cares? I just don't want "infecting" my works, or the ability of getting at taxpayer-funded research because I write proprietary programs and refuse to deal with the viral GPL.
You should be glad that companies/people can still lobby Congress. Let me assure you, IBM, Red Hat and others -- those pushing the GPL -- are as, or more vocal, than MS is on the issue.
Thanks goodness for good ole PAC dollars. Thank goodness for the First Amendment. Keep it coming, and vote if you want a change.
This has nothing to do with the issue - ad hominem never moves the ball. How many dollars have these people "taken" from IBM, Red Hat, etc. -- it's simply immaterial to the issue at hand. This is our "imperfect" system that can be (ab)used by all, equally.
Government projects should not require the GPL -- this is a stultifying license that brings fewer people to the table.
Totally agreed. You make it GPL, and it truly limits who's going to try and further that R&D.
GPL is designed to do only one thing well - to topple a monopoly or two - oh, and the entire proprietary ICT industry. BSD could further that research just as well, with more retirn on taxpayer dollars.
I don't have a problem with anyone/country making better products - but do you really need a directive, law, rule or policy change to get ya' there?
Whatever software development model you ascribe to, could you really want government telling you how to build your product, or say for instance, we will only take GPL products for our software purchases? I think that's preposterous...and dangerous.
The talent's already in India and China (and elsewhere) - they don't need GPL-centric regimes to foster their industry. They just need to make better products.
Slashdot Mirror
Very well stated. This pooint was brough up last week at the World Bank OSS event. The GPL, it seems to me, is as restrctive as any proprietary license. But, really, who cares? I just don't want "infecting" my works, or the ability of getting at taxpayer-funded research because I write proprietary programs and refuse to deal with the viral GPL.
Who cares? I think it's all good. If not, then you don't have a First Amendment worth anything.
We already do - it's called the VOTE. Use it, duder!
You should be glad that companies/people can still lobby Congress. Let me assure you, IBM, Red Hat and others -- those pushing the GPL -- are as, or more vocal, than MS is on the issue. Thanks goodness for good ole PAC dollars. Thank goodness for the First Amendment. Keep it coming, and vote if you want a change.
This has nothing to do with the issue - ad hominem never moves the ball. How many dollars have these people "taken" from IBM, Red Hat, etc. -- it's simply immaterial to the issue at hand. This is our "imperfect" system that can be (ab)used by all, equally. Government projects should not require the GPL -- this is a stultifying license that brings fewer people to the table.
Totally agreed. You make it GPL, and it truly limits who's going to try and further that R&D.
GPL is designed to do only one thing well - to topple a monopoly or two - oh, and the entire proprietary ICT industry. BSD could further that research just as well, with more retirn on taxpayer dollars.
I don't have a problem with anyone/country making better products - but do you really need a directive, law, rule or policy change to get ya' there?
Whatever software development model you ascribe to, could you really want government telling you how to build your product, or say for instance, we will only take GPL products for our software purchases? I think that's preposterous...and dangerous.
The talent's already in India and China (and elsewhere) - they don't need GPL-centric regimes to foster their industry. They just need to make better products.