OSNews

saying we want a whole lot of people using linux so that we can have quicken, photoshop, office_whatever, etc., seems to be missing the point to me. why not just use windows then, or get a lower end mac?

we want folk using linux, bsd, free_whatever_os, etc., (though they're also free not to of course, it goes both ways) because we actually care about being able to do with your software what you want it to do, in terms of technology, legality, and ethics, and not be shackled to the whims of a license of some corporate intellectual "property" which will dictate how you may, and may not, use your own computer in all it's various components.

See, there's the dichotomy of this whole issue. For people to experience freedom you're basically saying choice should be taken away from them.

Linux or any other *nix has much to offer users as an OS platform, why should the ability to use high quality commercial applications be exclusive of that just because they're closed source or proprietary?

I guess it boils down to whether you see OSS as a means to an end, or you simply see FSF as the end unto itself.

I won't begrudge people that insist on pure software freedom, that is certainly their right but by the same token, I think that same sector of the community needs to come to grips with the fact that closed-source and OSS are going to have to learn to co-exist for the forseeable future.

At the end of the day, I believe people should pick the best tool for the best job. Whether that means using GIMP on WinXP or Photoshop on Suse, people should be able to choose. Take that choice away from them and force them to use something they don't feel is appropriate for them and things start to break down.

maybe none of this matters to you, but I doubt the thousands of free softare hackers that have spent their own time making systems like linspire (and fedora, and suse, ...) possible didn't do it just to make those few companies CEOs and shareholders rich of off their (often unpaid) labour.

No, but the companies like IBM, or Nokia, or HP, or Novell etc. that have made massive investments in linux, whether in terms of R&D, code contributions, licensing or patent indemnification, may feel a little differently. Particularly since without their contributions, linux likely could not have reached it's current point of development.

People contributing code to OSS and licensing it under the license of their choice, whether GPL, BSD whatever should be doing so with both eyes open. For-profit organizations can contribute code to linux knowing that the GPL prevents that code from being appropriated and closed off for use by a competitor. It's the reason these companies spearhead linux versus a comparable "free" platform like BSD. But at the same time, people contributing GPL code must accept that their code may be used for commercial purposes as well, as long as it is within the provisions of the GPL.

To my mind, linux is almost the ideal example of a balanced "eco-system" that can be created when commercial and community interests work together. You don't see Apple doing much to help elevate BSD as a desktop platform (I know, I know, Darwin, whatever) despite the billions they've made by building off of it. But then, they're not required to.

Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry now, and linux isn't dominating global datacenters just because of LAMP. People are running high-end heavy iron apps like Oracle, SAP, WebSphere etc. that cost significant dollars. The fortune 500 have embraced linux and OSS, doesn't mean they're about ready to throw aside conventional business models and embrase FSF entirely.

So it should be with the desktop. Linux isn't a religion, I don't think Linus ever inteded it to be, it's simply an enabler. Hell, even Gnome, the declared "official" GNU/Linux desktop, waves GTK's LGPL licensing as a benefit to developers producing closed source and/or commercial application development without having to pay a license fee or otherwise contribute anything back. Linux is a fantastic platform, but it's hardly going to accelerate an agenda towards universally free and open software, which is probably part of it's popularity. BSD maybe, but linux is made for living comfortably in both worlds.

Linspire isn't my cup of tea, and I've commented before that they give me the impression of being a bit sleazy with their tactics for transitioning Windows customers, *but* that is just my opinion and at the end of the day, I don't really see anything technically wrong with what linspire is doing. Considering in my job I sell a considerable amount of commercial software that runs on linux server platforms, I'd be hypocritical to think otherwise.

Vive la choice, strings or not, that's what freedom should be about. To me, anyways.

Anyways, don't mean to vent, I understood where you were coming from but just wanted to throw in my 2c.