"This follow-up to the previously published article 'Ubuntu: Derivative or Fork?' takes into account most of everything that has been posted as a reaction to the first article to present a general opinion and compare them with facts derived from various resouces. You'll see that peace can be achieved between these two, and ultimately any GNU/Linux group out there."
Post a Comment
Member since:2005-07-06
The other article that this followed up was definitely flamebait, but this one is not. It clears up much of the misunderstanding that was causing the previous flamewar and tries to reconcile the sides. It even explains in detail why it is appropriate for the various sides to "agree to disagree". This is the opposite of flamebait.
Member since:---
Yeah, I agree. Although I don't see why either of these is getting this much attention. It seems like they are just glorified posts on a forum. Are either of these guys in any way a part of GNU/Linux development, or somehow otherwise involved in the community besides just being users?
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-09
but dude, it's like, for such a noble cause. In propoganda, people like freedom, say freedom and ****** often enough together, people like ******. Silence your critics, "What? You must be against freedom!"
...they can take our lives but they can never take our freedom to rebrand the work of others...
Braveheart
Use it, abuse it, change it, share the patches but I don't think anything should fork until it's dead and a respectful mourning period has passed, like xfree, or is converted into a completely different app or in a different niche at least. On the other hand the debian release cycle qualified as death.
Member since:---
I can't stand hearing this word any more. It's been overused and has lost all of its meaning.
Don't you believe that if it really did lost its meaning that it is an unfortunate situation we should do something about?
The thing is that without the thing that this word represents, you know the thing about not being locked up into monopolies, was the very reason why today GNU/Linux is an issue at all and that we'd be enjoying a free (yes as in *freedom*) operating system like we do.
So instead of avoiding it, we should in a contrary try to promote it as something attractive and good for everyone, something that is worth knowing and understanding. It really doesn't make much sense to talk about Free Software and GNU/Linux and completely leave the "freedom" issue from it, because the "freedom" is the reason why it is here.
Besides all this, the site where this was published on (founded by little myself) is ALL about that freedom, from Free (as in freedom) software to the Free (as in freedom) culture encompassing it.
Thank you
Danijel Orsolic
Member since:2005-07-06
free (yes as in *freedom*)
As in which freedom? The developer's freedom of not being allowed link GPL and (original) BSD licensed code? The developer's freedom of not being allowed to revoke license when he sees his software used in immoral ways? The "freedom" that the GPL claims is just an arbitrary choice - one man's freedom is the other one's prison.
In my experience, the majority of GNU/Linux users mostly cares about the free as in beer aspect more than the freedom aspect. Just give them the choice between paying and getting the source code or getting binaries for free and see what they prefer.
Member since:---
The "freedom" that the GPL claims is just an arbitrary choice - one man's freedom is the other one's prison.
GPL was designed to prevent exactly that kind of thing from happening. It balances my freedom with yours instead of allowing my freedom to crossover yours. Societally, too much freedom (or that kind of freedom that allows one to be free on the expense of another) is not an objective freedom for all at all.
And developers that chose GPL know what were they doing (or at least should) and knew what this license allows so the whole implication that developers are somehow loosing their freedom doesn't really stands, especially considering that it was exactly developers who stirred the whole Free Software movement in the first place to allow for an existence of a culture where they can share code and acomplishments, much like scientists have always done, instead of being forced into non-disclosure agreements companies started to lock them into. It was not only users who were locked in, it was developers too.
Thank you
Daniel
Member since:2005-07-06
"GPL was designed to prevent exactly that kind of thing from happening. It balances my freedom with yours instead of allowing my freedom to crossover yours."
That's what everyone claims about his license. Ask Apple or Sun what the intend of their open source licenses was.
Personally, I found that the GPL often did not allow me to do the things I needed - link against non-GPL code. To be precise, SDKs for non-GPL applications. The GPL prevents me from developing and distributing software because it defines freedom as "everything must be GPL'd". The LGPL, on the other hand, is allowing me to link it against SDKs of other licenses.
If the GPL stands for "preventing the creation of software that does not follow this license", I'm fine with that. Heck, I have released software under the GPL myself because I wanted the enforcement of shared source code. But please don't expect me to call this restriction "freedom" just because someone you do.
Member since:---
The LGPL, on the other hand, is allowing me to link it against SDKs of other licenses.
Then simply use LGPL. As long as people have the four freedoms I am all for it. BSD is in that sense a good choice for a license as well, although for me, not the best choice.
If the GPL stands for "preventing the creation of software that does not follow this license", I'm fine with that. Heck, I have released software under the GPL myself because I wanted the enforcement of shared source code. But please don't expect me to call this restriction "freedom" just because someone you do.
I'm not expecting that from you. That particular restriction has its role and it is further protecting the freedoms ensured by the license because, as it happens, the world still doesn't run on all monopoly free software. If it were, that restriction would probably be pointless. So, this restriction in itself is not the thing that gives you freedom as it merely protects it. It is the grant of those rights that the GPL provides, that gives you freedom.
Thanks
Daniel
Member since:2005-07-06
"Then simply use LGPL."
Now I can't just turn GPL software in LGPL software, can I? I'm talking about cases where I would like to turn existing GPL software into a GPL plugin for commercial applications. However, that would require linking against the non-GPL SDK of these applications, which the GPL does not permit. In that regard, the GPL is valuing the freedom of the software more than the freedom of developers and imposing burdens on developers and users. I prefer licenses that protect the rights of people, not the rights of software.
Member since:---
Now I can't just turn GPL software in LGPL software, can I? I'm talking about cases where I would like to turn existing GPL software into a GPL plugin for commercial applications.
If by "commercial" you mean proprietary than what you want to do in that case is exactly what GPL shields us against. If we just allow mixing proprietary and Free Software like this, then soon there wont be much point in GPL and the Free Software movement in a whole.
Free Software, however, can be commercial at the same time when it's distributed for a price (e.g pay to download), but the freedoms always stay. When either of the four freedoms aren't ensured the software is actually proprietary. There is a difference between "proprietary" and "commercial".
I prefer licenses that protect the rights of people, not the rights of software.
It protects the rights of the people. I don't find much sense in the sarcasm I sense here, as software can't have rights. It is all about people, software users which are both developers and users (as developers use software to make software). As I said, it was developers who started the Free Software movement in the first place, because of themselves and their liberty.
Thank you
Daniel
Member since:2005-07-02
I'm talking about cases where I would like to turn existing GPL software into a GPL plugin for commercial applications.
There is a way to do this: simply ask the developer to release their code under a dual license: a GPL one for normal release and a LGPL one to be used as plugins. The LGPL could apply only to those portions of code used in the plug-in architecture. Why not try to make your case with them? After all, as copyright holders, they are free to relicense their software as they see fit!
However, that would require linking against the non-GPL SDK of these applications, which the GPL does not permit.
Actually, you can link to non-GPL SDK if they are GPL-compatible, such as the current BSD license.
Member since:---
I care about freedom and free stuff.
Do you mean to tell me that as a developer you would complain about getting free stuff that requests any products you make with it must be available as free stuff, too?
Why expect someone to give it to you and trust you to be good with it?
I know BSD does that. But if you're so greedy that you don't want to share your modifications you shouldn't expect anyone to give you Linux(TM) to do with as you please. You must be crazy, man. This is real world production quality technology here, not some unversity's toy project. Need me to spell it out for you? If you want to benefit from the Intellectual Property IBM and HP and SGI and countless others are dumping into this technology you gotta pay for the right to distribute with your Intellectual Property.
I'm sorry, but Linux ain't free beer. If you want to drink this beer you must promise to go pee in the toilet.
Member since:
---
First, this article could hae been written years ago about Debian and any of its deriviatives. And, it was, over and over.
Second, id you're viewed as a small sect that's trying to covincce the majority that you really do have a better idea, wouldn't it be smart to avoid public doctrinal catfights about issues only members of the sect understand and care about?
Member since:
---
It's been my most used distro for the past year at least and after the colony 5 release, I'm back to an almost pure debian - Kanotix: www.kanotix.com. Kanotix even had the very new open source wireless realtek 8180 driver, detecting my hardware and insmoding it, as well as autodetecting everything else since it's based off of knopix.
I liked Hoary, it was a nice distro, but I've found out that personally I don't really like the Ubuntu development model anymore. I'm either stuck with stable with no new packages (besides backports), or I go to unstable Ubuntu (development) which seemed to be in a perpetual broken state even up to now. I'd rather just deal with the Sid model where things don't get in bleeding edge, but things are relatively up to date, along with some other goodies from kanotix's repositories.
Hell, with klik I can just run anything I want at the click of a button. I clicked on the e17 button at the klik website, went out and smoked a cigarette, came back in 7 minutes later and I had a fully running e17 in an nx session on my desktop.
I wish Ubuntu the best, it served me well, but I'm moving on for the time being.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
These Debian/Ubuntu flamefests over the past few days have really done a good job at hashing out the differences between Ubuntu and other Debian derivatives.
So now I'd like to know why people use other Debian derivatives instead of just using Debian. If all of their packages are compatible and you can just point your sources.list wherever you want what's the point of them?
Not criticizing them, just honestly want to know.
Member since:2005-07-06
Debian is fine. Compatible derivatives are just "ready to use" customizations of Debian.
Such customizations, if they are really good, stay 100% Debian compatible.
You could get there from Debian, but somebody else has done a lot of work in order to make your life easier, your Debian experience more pleasant.
Member since:---
Member since:---
I was one of those that fell in love with just plain vanilla debian. After trying Knoppix, Gnoppix, Mepis and others, it really boils down to (for me that is) a few simple things. A: nvidia drivers, *noppix and others allowed me to EASILY install nvidia drivers and have it up and running in no time, while with plain debian it was a pain in the a$$. B: Install, while all of the installations for all the derivatives is the same, the hardware detection for those are head and shoulders above vanilla debian install.
The way I see it, there are many camps that veiw debian in different ways. Those that want the stable release, those that want the bleeding edge, and those that just want it to work.
I for one love how Ubuntu works, I don't need bleeding edge all the time, I just "want it to work" and be done with it. The last few times I've installed Knoppix, the HD install just doesn't install clean. I have alot of useless packages that I don't need, configurations that I can't fix without muddling around all the conf files and guessing what's what. It should'nt be that way.
anywhoo, my $.2
Member since:---
You seem to have a lot of... zeal. Let's face it, without a certain amount of "marketing", whether it be word of mouth or a billboard, very little would be bought/sold/used anywhere. The argument is (as I have feebly understood it here) that if something doesn't "work" in the open source model, it gets abandoned. That's all well and good, but the implied idea is that what does work remains, or gets adapted. Love or hate Ubuntu, they seem to be doing something right. Perhaps it isn't a graceful or new creature from a purely computational perspective, but if it is only the ability to generate enough "hype" and positive reviews, then it is something from which all Linux distros can benefit. I use Ubuntu, but until I saw your "hype" about Katonix, I wasn't inclined to try it. Now I am. I think you're on to something...
Member since:2005-07-06
"You seem to have a lot of... zeal."
LOL. One of my points is, and I keep reading it more and more often, that this little distro, Kanotix, is really very good and yet it is almost unknown.
"if something doesn't "work" in the open source model, it gets abandoned."
That is very true.
"Love or hate Ubuntu, they seem to be doing something right."
Yes, they have managed to make installing Debian with Xorg and Gnome easier. If they hadn't created incompatibility between Debian's and their own binaries, nowadays everybody would like them.
"I think you're on to something..."
LOL, like what? I won't earn any money by recommending Kanotix. I am just somebody who'd like to see the overall linux standards raised.
Member since:2005-07-04
Yes, they have managed to make installing Debian with Xorg and Gnome easier. If they hadn't created incompatibility between Debian's and their own binaries, nowadays everybody would like them.
Although that may be all Ubuntu itself has done, Ubuntu is essentially a product of the Shuttleworth Foundation. They have invested money in the KDE Education Suite, they have helped poor African schools convert to Free Software to save money and help African students have greater access to computers to improve learning, they are making a distro which is aimed at lowering the costs of mass deployment of desktops at schools worldwide (Edubuntu, which uses a lot of technology from LTSP).
So yes, while Ubuntu itself may only be what you say, the people backing it have done far more for free software than you may think.
Oh, and BTW, Hoary and Sid were compatable until Debian altered their libc which broke compatability. I think it is a bit unfair to ask Ubuntu to break their policy of freezing all packages just because Debian wanted to alter a package in their distro. I suppose Red Hat should break compatability with older, certified apps for their enterprise products everytime their is an ABI change upstream? Why isn't everyone harping on Mandriva for breaking compatability with Red Hat, whom they were originally derived from?
Like I said in an earlier post, Ubuntu has done far more than any other distro that is based on Debian but doesn't track the main repos to ensure compatability. They send their patches to Debian as soon as they are modified, whereas Linspire, for instance, releases a big ISO of source code at every new release, with no disclosure beforehand. Go harp on them.
Member since:2005-07-06
"Linspire, for instance, releases a big ISO of source code at every new release, with no disclosure beforehand."
We can't really put Linspire into the equation, although I must say that once I dist-upgrade Linspire 5.0 to Sid and I didn't break anything.
For everything else they have done for the poor and the Open Source community, kudos to them, I try to be a fair man.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-08
I agree -- this is one of the things I really dislike about ubuntu. I'd like kanotix a lot more if it had a better installer, but I have it installed on one of my drives. Also, not speaking german is a major bummer when looking at their forums. But yeah, the 6 month freeze/upgrade cycle is something I could do without.
Member since:2005-07-06
"Also, not speaking german is a major bummer when looking at their forums."
Dear friend
There is a pretty good English section of the forum (and growing), the wiki is in English as well as in German...
Besides if you post in English in the German forum, you get quite often a polite reply in English, mostly from Kano himself.
Kano, besides being a genius, is incredibly down to earth and approachable.
Member since:---
Member since:---
"Hell, with klik I can just run anything I want at the click of a button. I clicked on the e17 button at the klik website, went out and smoked a cigarette, came back in 7 minutes later and I had a fully running e17 in an nx session on my desktop."
Would like to point out that Klik is available for Ubuntu as well.
Member since:
---
So, did Mark Shuttleworth play this role right? Can the community trust him?
There is no freaking "community" to "trust" Shuttleworth. I hate these geek idiots that try to lump people and themselves into organizations that they are not part of. "the community" doesn't even know who you are. These guys need to get their heads checked.
Member since:2005-08-23
There is no freaking "community" to "trust" Shuttleworth. I hate these geek idiots that try to lump people and themselves into organizations that they are not part of. "the community" doesn't even know who you are. These guys need to get their heads checked.
NO
the community does not know who YOU are. We might if you bothered to register !
BUT beleive it or not there actually is fully developed linux and oss communities. If there were not, then it would be impossible to develop.
It appears you never thought your post through before you sent it, doesn't it ?
Member since:
---
Mark and his millions]
Most people today have learned not to trust the rich ones and keep them under constant suspicion instead. I actually think that this is a good thing, especially considering that money has indeed proven to be something that truly does have the power to corrupt a person. I actually believe that everyone with a lot of money and power should very well be aware of this (positive) societal trait and act accordingly and responsibly. In other words, people with money have an additional burden to bare and this is one of keeping their image (their motives and intentions) straight, especially if they genuinely are honest.
More leftist bullshit about hating the rich.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:
---
I think Ubuntu could piss less people off by making their packages compatible with Debian. And there's no reason they couldn't do that.
That being said, its not like they are obligated in anyway to be compatible. We're talking about GPL-licensed software. Ubuntu is not breaking the license, and they are better-than-most at keeping only Free software in their standard install.
It seems like the original article was trying to suggest that Ubuntu, Mark S, and Canocial are planning some shadowy corporate evil in the future, and frankly as long as they stay rooted in GPL software, they can't do anything that Users won't have the last say in.
This how argument is mostly pointless. The maintainers of Debian have a right to feel slighted by the popularity, and (to some extent) snubbing of their work, but frankly, tough noogies, nobody Owns this stuff.
Member since:2005-07-04
I think Ubuntu could piss less people off by making their packages compatible with Debian. And there's no reason they couldn't do that.
That being said, its not like they are obligated in anyway to be compatible. We're talking about GPL-licensed software. Ubuntu is not breaking the license, and they are better-than-most at keeping only Free software in their standard install.
It seems like the original article was trying to suggest that Ubuntu, Mark S, and Canocial are planning some shadowy corporate evil in the future, and frankly as long as they stay rooted in GPL software, they can't do anything that Users won't have the last say in.
This how argument is mostly pointless. The maintainers of Debian have a right to feel slighted by the popularity, and (to some extent) snubbing of their work, but frankly, tough noogies, nobody Owns this stuff.
Shuttleworth and the Debian team had a discussion about this. Ubuntu WAS compatable with Sid when Hoary was released. When Ubuntu makes a release, they completely freeze all packages, with no version upgrades. Even RHEL has version upgrades for certain apps (Gaim is one that comes to mind). Debian upgraded libc to fix some problems with some of their architectures, and thus it was Debian that broke compatability, not Ubuntu. Shuttleworth was actually incredibly reasonable, he said that neither team should hold the other back and if they need to diverge for a period to acheive their own goals, then thats what should be done. He said he wouldn't feel right forcing Debian to stray from their goals to maintain Ubuntu compatability, just like Debian shouldn't force Ubuntu to stray from his goals.
Source : Deb Conf videos (can't remember URL, google for it). I watched the one on Ubuntu cause I was interested, the other ones seemed boring so I didn't download them.
I don't see what the big fuss is. Ubuntu could be a real pain in the ass and release all of the source code in one huge tarball at release time, much like Xandros and Linspire do. Instead, they make it very easy for Debian and Ubuntu to maintain compatability. All patches are sent to Debian in real-time. They even have a webpage with changes information to make it easy for the changes to be merged back into Debian. So why don't we see articles about Linspire vs. Debian or Xandros vs. Debian?
Member since:2005-07-11
Shuttleworth and the Debian team had a discussion about this. Ubuntu WAS compatable with Sid when Hoary was released. When Ubuntu makes a release, they completely freeze all packages, with no version upgrades. Even RHEL has version upgrades for certain apps (Gaim is one that comes to mind). Debian upgraded libc to fix some problems with some of their architectures, and thus it was Debian that broke compatability, not Ubuntu. Shuttleworth was actually incredibly reasonable, he said that neither team should hold the other back and if they need to diverge for a period to acheive their own goals, then thats what should be done. He said he wouldn't feel right forcing Debian to stray from their goals to maintain Ubuntu compatability, just like Debian shouldn't force Ubuntu to stray from his goals.
Debian sid (and etch) now have the same glibc version as Ubuntu, so that should be no problem.
A good example of Debian and Ubuntu choosing different roads to a common destination is the introduction of X.Org in Debian after the sarge release and their way towards the modular X.Org release (7.0). Ubuntu helped to make Debian's transition to X.Org quicker but Debian decided to diverge from Ubuntu's way with the modular X.Org. However, once X.Org 7.0 has been released and they've both got it packaged, there are plans to converge Debian's and Ubuntu's packages so that the collaboration and sharing of patches between these two distros can continue.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00865.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00882.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00888.html
As it seems, Ubuntu will release breezy badger with X.Org 6.8.2 and introduce X.Org 7.0 in dapper drake. And Debian has already X.Org 6.9RC0 packaged and available in experimental. So independence and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. :-)
Member since:
---
The different paths of Debian derivatives simply show that evolution is much faster with free software / open source. Closed systems are often maid to be protective and sustainable, with open source it is the opposite. The articles and the debate is just a way for people to deal with these speedy changes. Or as Einstain said - The only constant in Universe is change.
Member since:
2005-07-06
"To Fork or Not To Fork" by Benjamin Mako Hill at http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html
I think that's the best article that explains the relationshio between Debian and Ubuntu.
From what I can see. Debian and Ubuntu developers and other people behind the scene seems to get a long nicely.
Most complains comes from end users and developers of other Debian-based distro and Ian Murdoch.
Member since:
---
This article was written in an attempt to discourage any "harping" and "flaming" between debian, ubuntu and any GNU/Linux communities, or (if some really so hate that word), people, users.. whoever..
And really, doesn't that make the most sense? It's Free Software, it thrives on diversity and .. yes.. you guessed.. freedom! 
Thanks
Daniel
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-08
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-08-04
Because my distro is better than your suxxor distro!
As in, there may always be peace between the rational and smart people, but there are also people who are a bit more, er, trolls or something (okay okay, "people with better opinions than the others"). And the real problems arise when some advanced/famous developer lacks good enough social skills. But we will just to try keep the communication going, as always. Most foss people do share, one way or other, the same love for free software, whether it be bsd or gpl-like.
Member since:
---
Apart nice discussions on freedom and gpl tell me please a serious technical need for ubuntu to avoid debian compatibility.
Personally I came from a world of red hat where, when you find the rpm you need , it is for suse or mandrake and you cannot install on redhat. In the debian world I can install debian using knoppix then I change apt sources...
Ubuntu is an hyper hyped distro. The first version was only debian renamed with broken compatibility. Now I tried the latest live version (that should recognize notebooks etc. etc. ) on my thinkpad just to see that it has no madwifi driver and no thinkpad acpi or buttons management...
Sorry but I do not want to lose 10000+ debian packages....
Member since:
---
Move along here, not much to see, surely. Just a rather woolly essay from a school kid (by the sound of it) that's successfully stirred a lot of sh-one-t.
Ubuntu's most important work isn't in the well-heeled West anyway, with our outlandishly powerful desktops and fast broadband. Ubuntu's thoughtful and carefully simplified approach is what the rest of the world needs, where telecoms are poor to non-existent, computerware costs a fortune (comparatively) and perhaps there is only one PC in a village or school.
Even better, running FOSS software allows users to retain their dignity. They aren't reduced to being developing-world supplicants receiving cut-price software handouts from Big Bill and his gang.
Everything Ubuntu does was available to Debian for years. A glance at a site like Planet Debian suggests why the Debian "community" hoho were unable or unwilling to implement a simplified desktop version of pure Debian that might actually help people whose parents aren't able to afford the West's finest universities. I guess the Debian project leaders might care to ask themselves a few questions about why Debian seems stuck in a time warp, but it looks as if they are too busy trying to make money out of the Debian name these days.
Just my 2 cents.
Member since:2005-07-06
Even better, running FOSS software allows users to retain their dignity. They aren't reduced to being developing-world supplicants receiving cut-price software handouts from Big Bill and his gang.
yes, the one pc in 3rd world village might be a 386 with 48mb or ram, but at least it can run a modern distro, with a good window manager and free apps.
And I mean FREE as in BEER apps.
The whole village can have the experience for zero dineros, legally too !
but if they were to use windows, then if they were to use a decent amount of software, if legal, it would cost too much.
and that cut down version of xp that runs 3 apps or something like that, is purely an insult to all of the 3rd world.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
After almost 10 Years of being immersed in the "Little OS that could." It becomes apparent that the philsophy of linux has be lost. Back when I was a n00b we used to have to complie kernels up hills both ways on 368 hardware....lol. Seriously though Linux was Free. Not just as in free beer but free of negative, immature rants of my distro is better than yours, worrying about keeping up with MS or share holders. I think we all should get back to our roots. At least in attitude toward each other and our distro's. Don't forget out common root( lol / )...Linux and the Open Source community. Emphasis on Community.
-nX
Member since:
---
it seems like some people associate their manhood with their distro popularity. ubuntu becomes the king shit, and all of a sudden all kinds of debian users get all worked up. i really dont see WHY, i mean, who cares what other people are using, if it has zero effect on you personally. debian is a great system, but i find it takes alot of work to get it into the shape of something i want to use. then ubuntu came out, and halved that.
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-08-12
For years and years OSS community blamed MS for stealing DOS, Apple GUI, .net, browser and what not!
look at linux distros now. aren't they are stealing directly or indirectly something from debian. Then putting old wine in new bottle and shipping..
maybe stealing is harsh word related to money but these distros are definitely stealing or fleecing debian to gain fame and one fine day they will claim entire linux as if they developed everything from scratch.
Think why businessman like Mark will invest millions $$$ in Ubuntu unless he has some profit or money making plans??
There must be some ulterior motive....just matter of time to get exposed....
Member since:2005-07-06
no wait involved...
mark shuttleworth firmly nailed his agenda to the door.
He set up a separate company to provide support to companies who adopt ubuntu. This is a separate entity from the company who produces ubuntu.
He has a right to make money, and supporting his product is the way he wants to do this.
Member since:
---
I confess, I can only think at basic levels.
I am wondering if Einstein could have considered that equation his property even though a universities education contributed to it. The equation is both a tool and information. I feel in my heart that he had the rights to ownership. that he could have chosen to enter into a deal with a manufacturer and produced products leading to profits.
But he was involved in a community which led him another way. i would like to think i would behave the same way and give it to the world. But I defend the choice he could have made.
Member since:
---
Freedom of speech is a basic human right no one should be denied and strict censorship is an act of oppression. Applying the same words to software is implying a parallel, that there is oppressive software licensing and a human right to modify and redisitriute other people's work.
It is not implying, I am actually saying that it is so!
This is the thing I disagree with, because I consider producing and selling proprietary software a basic right everyone should be granted in a free society and there is nothing oppressive about it.
You are right and noone is disputing that you have a choice and wont be forced not to produce proprietary software, that is license it as such, but we wont consider that to be a right choice because yes, it is oppressive, it is a monopoly and it is way of ethical balance between a creator and user which many times is also a creator. Culture is built on past, but when past is thrown under restrictive licensing, it is no longer available for the culture to be built further, thus being detrimental to it. Software is an important part of our culture.
As for putting "five" (actually four) things he wanted and calling it freedom. What RMS and FSF did was something else, they simply defined freedom and came up with four points that should be satisfied for one to have an optimal computing freedom. You can do the same with freedom of speech. Just answer the question what does freedom of speech means, what does it implies, what abilities, and you'll get your set of "rules".
But if you just can't (or more like wont) understand, than there is no use trying to help you.
Bye
Danijel Orsolic
Member since:2005-07-06
"You are right and noone is disputing that you have a choice and wont be forced not to produce proprietary software, that is license it as such, but we wont consider that to be a right choice because yes, it is oppressive, it is a monopoly and it is way of ethical balance between a creator and user which many times is also a creator."
Wow. So when I create software and attach a license that says "users are not allowed to use this program to build nuclear weapons or torture devices" (which restricts usage and thus makes it GPL-incompatible and "non-Free"), I am a oppressive monopolist and unethical? You are questioning my freedom to apply my moral values to my creations.
