login
Search
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:Then why don't they fight it? Why isn't Stallman or Torvalds or other prominents standing up and saying, "This is wrong! This is not what we are about!" Sure, there is no way they can get involved in every little issue that comes up, but the GNU and FSF are all about their license they are very proud of and defend strongly. I'd expect something out of 'em on this, as the morality, ethics -- and yes, the law -- are so clear, and their casual indifference towards another license is too likely to end up blowing up on 'em in the future. (my first response was going to be, "this isn't about the official views of the GNU project", but then...they have been strangely silent). Of the PROGRAMMERS, sure. Duh. Thats' why they do it. Pretty much by definition, people who give stuff away are..uh..givers. :) If that's what you mean by the "free software movement", fine. However, most of the people using the word "community" include the vast number of users. I'm talking about the takers. Those who leach without ever giving back. I think if I count the number of people posting horribly offensive "You should do it MY way, and cater to MY needs because I want you to" messages to misc@ to those that actually contribute code (or any other kind of support) to the OpenBSD project, you would see you are wrong. Note: I'm not talking about people asking questions, even dumb or un- researched question. I'm talking about those who say we are doing something "wrong" who've never attempted to do better. The people who say "OpenBSD would be more popular if <stupid advice here>". The people who post politely worded but ever-so-offensive messages that make developers say to themselves, "Why do I do this? Certainly not for him". I'm not talking about Richard Stallman, I'm talking about the people who quote him and chant his words, then live very contrary to them. I.e., not words of the prophet, but the actions of the "followers". People wrap themselves in pretty words, then go out and screw each other when it is convenient. (Ok, I'm no fan of RMS. Or ESR. But I'm not talking about 'em.) are you implying that the GPL & FSF *is* the free software movement? Sorry, but I happen to ALSO represent it. Obviously you have missed some of my commentaries on the GPL vs. BSD philosophy. I don't hate the GPL. I dislike it compared to the BSD alternative in general (I dislike milk chocolate compared to dark chocolate, too, but either beats the heck out of, uh, most things. :) but the short version is, it boils down to which you fear more: Big Companies using your code and thus, you as a developer, without pay or allowing you to use their code. -- or -- Big Companies NOT using your code, and rolling their own (inferior, incompatible, inconsistent, proprietary) crap instead. I can make a pretty convincing case for either. However, as much as I'd dislike seeing Microsoft take OpenBSD code and ideas without compensation of any kind, I'd much prefer they use the code and ideas to not using 'em. But that's me. Not all may agree, and that's a good thing. What I do hate is hypocrisy. People who preach the love of God, and kill those who preach it slightly differently. People who say God is all powerful, then feel the need to "defend" him. People in an auto-town who slap a UAW Union "NO SCAB PAPERS" bumper sticker on their car made by non-union workers ("Solidarity for me!") People who say "PROTECT MY CODE" while they steal someone else's. GPL is so far down that list, it can't be called "hate". Not even an annoyance really. UNLESS it gets slapped on someone's code without their permission and against their wishes. That's not hating the GPL in general, just the actions of some who pretend to support it. (I love chocolate, but I hate to see it ground and melted into the upholstery of my chair. That's just not where it belongs, and it may be rather embarrassing when I stand up) Your tone is similar to that of people who refuse to condemn the acts of vandals or killers simply because they are (loosely and self- proclaimed) of the same arbitrary group as they are. "An attack on them is an an attack on me, and we can't have that!" I can condemn an action of the state of Israel without being anti-Jewish. I can condemn an action of my own government (or its people or its media) without being anti-American. I can condemn an action of a violent "religious" group without being against the true teachings and followers of that religion. (OT Rant: I am tired of hearing of "Islamic terrorists" or "Christian militants". These guys aren't representing their religions, and it is freaking time the vast majority of the GOOD people who follow those religions stood up and said, "Hey, they aren't me!" rather than letting their silence support the destruction of their own reputations. Ok, I digress. Or maybe not). I can condemn an action of some who call themselves "free software developers" who have done wrong without being against free software. I can condemn the inactions of "free software supporters" who have shown their true motives. And I will say what I see those true motives to be. "while the killings were unfortunate ..." uh, no. There is no way you can convince me that either the GPL or BSD license permits the removal and replacement. holy shit. The ends ("perfectly acceptable social goals") justify the means (theft of intellectual property)? Wish I had saw that before I started this response, you are not worth the time. (well, as long as I am this far...) There are perfectly acceptable social goals achieved only by releasing under the BSD or similar license, so let's go BSDify gcc! Sure, you will say that the GPL doesn't allow that, but if you can ignore/alter the meaning of three simple lines for your benefit, well, I suspect I can twist meaning out of the many pages of GPL that will make both our heads spin. Wow. Nick.
