Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Permalink for comment 548220
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
Again, that doesn't have any impact on using the software what so ever.
If you're a developer, then choosing which licence to release your code as and what projects to work in is very important. But we're talking about reasons not to run a piece of software - not develop for.
Furthermore, if you really cared about the developers work being rewarded, then you wouldn't boycott *BSD just because of it's license - because that's essentially just wasting the developers time.
And lastly, if you really stood by your principles you wouldn't use Firefox, Apache, Xorg nor any of the other non-GPL software on Linux. So all this "I only use GPL" and the boycotting of *BSD because of it's licence, when MIT is almost identical and essential to Linux desktops, is pure hypocrisy.
Sorry if this comes across aggressive, but it really winds my up that the hard work of BSD developers is effectively rubbished by the non-developer Linux community simply because a few zealots don't like the fact that BSD allows corporations not to contribute back to the original source. Something that makes absolutely no difference to the software from a users perspective.