Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th May 2006 15:00 UTC, submitted by jeanmarc
Mac OS X "Thanks to pirates, or rather the fear of them, the Intel edition of Apple's OS X is now a proprietary operating system. Mac developers and power users no longer have the freedom to alter, rebuild, and replace the OS X kernel from source code. Stripped of openness, it no longer possesses the quality that elevated Linux to its status as the second most popular commercial OS."
Thread beginning with comment 125725
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Huh?
by Ford Prefect on Wed 17th May 2006 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh?"
Ford Prefect
Member since:
2006-01-16

The free software movement is not about freedom of people but about freedom of software. So it is nothing obscure to prevent people from taking away freedom from software.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Huh?
by nberardi on Wed 17th May 2006 22:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Huh?"
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

What is the difference. Software is made my people? If people don't have freedom to make the software, how can the software be free?

It sort of sounds like the USSR, where the economy was given (or free) to the people, but the people weren't free to do what they wanted to better them selves.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Huh?
by Ford Prefect on Wed 17th May 2006 23:48 in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

I don't see any relation to the USSR, but I also don't understand your first statement.

That's because as a developer who distributes software under a certain licence, I have no power over people's freedom anyway; in particular I can't prevent them from making software!

But, I have power over my software which I want to make free. To ensure it stays free - and further work done on it - I use a licence which prevents deriving software from it which is unfree. Sounds perfect for a developer who wants freedom for software.


Let's see: If you fight for freedom of people, it comes down to protect people against other people. If you fight for freedom of software, it comes down to protect software against some people.


In the end one can hope that the society, or people, benefit from having free software. One can fear that this benefits will be destroyed by people building unfree software on top of free software thus attract people to fall back to unfree software which is not the best for them in longer terms.


But to be pragmatic, me as a developer can decide to do a gift to the public by releasing free software. But I want to get something back eventually - if someone improves my software, I want to benefit from these improvements, too. As my gift gains in value or as I can use these improvements myself (I wrote the software because I needed it myself in first place).

Reply Parent Score: 1