Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Jun 2012 23:56 UTC, submitted by Modafinil
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Samba Team and seven kernel hackers have come together with Software Freedom Conservancy to help efforts to ensure compliance with the GPL by those who implement Linux and other GPL software. Richard Hillesley talked to Bradley Kuhn of Software Freedom Conservancy, Jeremy Allison of Samba, and Matthew Garrett, who works in his spare time with the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers."
Permalink for comment 520506
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What a waste of time....
by kwan_e on Sun 3rd Jun 2012 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE: What a waste of time.... "
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

I've never cared for the GPL, and have always considered it akin to forced communism.


Unless you're forced to use GPL without having incorporated GPL into your code, it is NOT forced communism. You are FREE to not choose GPL.

Sure, you may be free to redistribute the software all you want, but when it comes to actually developing with it, you're not nearly so free when considering the possibility of using GPL'd code or libraries.


You're free not to use GPL libraries. This criticism I see all the time is just people complaining that they're not allowed to use other people's code without conditions.

Well guess what, normally, you'd have to BUY such code or write your own.

The FSF is as hypocritical as the US government when talking about freedom. What they both mean is, sure you're free to do what you want as long as you obey our rules. They allow you a limited subset of freedom which, to my mind, is not freedom at all.


The FSF never claims to be about "total freedom". The FSF, the GPL especially, is about SUSTAINED freedom and a pragmatic freedom. Read up on philosophy some time and learn about the actual effects of total freedom.

To those who say that companies like Oracle could've taken a public domain Linux or GCC and made it proprietary: you're absolutely right. They would be free to do that, just as the original developers would be free to maintain their own open source version.


Companies like Oracle would then be free to continue leeching off the efforts of the original developers without giving anything back.

In the end, everyone would have been better off and, if the proprietary Linux worked better (say by having a stable driver interface), that might have created a reason for the open source developers to strive for improvement in that area. Competition drives innovation, pure and simple.


Please explain the lack of drivers for the BSDs compared to Linux.

Linux isn't in competition with anything. Competition does not drive innovation in open source because money is not what is needed to survive.

Reply Parent Score: 4