Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 18th Apr 2006 17:49 UTC
Linux Efforts to bring glitzy new graphics to Linux are fueling an old conflict: Does proprietary software belong in open-source Linux? The issue involves software modules called drivers, which plug into the kernel at the heart of the open-source operating system. Drivers let software communicate with hardware such as network adapters, hard drives and video cards.
Permalink for comment 116330
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Religion doesn't need a God....
by leech on Wed 19th Apr 2006 13:15 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Religion doesn't need a God, it needs a license agreement. The insanity of some people who could believe that using proprietary software (which in this case they're talking about closed source software) along with the Linux kernel is just plain scary.

Unethical is stealing an old lady's purse. Ethical would be to beat up the thief and give back the purse.

Unethical would be to use the GNU/Linux environment to hack into the bank accounts of middle-class people and give the money to yourself. Ethical would be to hack into the bank account of Bill Gates and give out his money to all the people who are over charged for their copy of Windows.

Mixing software of different licenses has nothing to do with ethics. The legality of it may come into question, but politics and ethics should never be brought into how someone uses their software.

I propose that from now on Religions should also have a EULA. After all, much like the GPL, there are many interpretations of the 'Holy' books. Zealots for every cause tend to act and think the same way, whether it's for God, a software license, or for the Pilsbury Dough Boy.

There's a certain insanity that takes all of the rationality out of people when they start talking about something that they believe in strongly. With the GPL, people start thinking that they should use ONLY GPL software, and everything else should be considered Satan, and not free. This is absurd. If your 'freedom' is limited to only using GPL, then it's not very free, now is it?

Freedom (as far as computers go) should simply be that you can do with your computer whatever the hell you want, as long as it doesn't affect others. Truly the only time you can lose your freedom over your computer, is when you are forced to install software that you don't want/need. When people say it's unethical to use 'free' software with 'non-free' software, then they are entirely stupid. Obviously people who release their software under a 'free' license WANT PEOPLE TO USE IT! In fact, when people SELL their software, they still want people to USE IT!. I bet you if you asked Linus personally if he thought it was ok if you ran Postal 2 under Linux he'd probably just say "Why the f*** should I care?" He's not going to say, "No, you can't because it's not open source, and you're a bad little monkey for thinking that I worked and created the Linux kernel just so you could go around in a 3D rendered world and urinate on people."

I don't know Linus personally, but from seeing some of his posts on mailing lists, I know he doesn't care pretty much what you do with it, that's why he licensed it under GPL. As long as you follow the GPL (distribution with source, add back any modifications that are beneficial to others, etc.) Let's face it this argument is a lame debate that really only belongs to those who are zealots. While you COULD run a completely open sourced Desktop system, and only used the Gimp, or Abiword or Open Office, Evolution, etc. Doesn't mean that you HAVE to.

I think that is enough said. Anyone who disagrees with me, I will stab you in the jaw with a fork. (Dane Cook reference, yes, I'm tired, I worked all night and my brain is wired strange, but at least I know that this argument is insane. We can smell our own ;) )

Leech

Edit: Now that I think about it, Linus would probably say "Well, I DID in fact create Linux so that you could walk around in a 3D world and urinate on people. But I wanted it to be a giant penguin walking around instead of a guy in a trenchcoat."

Edited 2006-04-19 13:16

Reply Score: 2