"This show features an interview with Richard Stallman, founder of the free software movement and the man who put the GNU into GNU/Linux. After introducing the concept of free software, Richard offers some trenchant criticism of two tech superstars: the Lord of Linux, Linus Torvalds, and Apple guru Steve Jobs. From there, we move into a discussion of the impact of free software - and freedom more generally - on the evolution of personal and global consciousness."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-10
Open Source code, and proprietory code are both tools for a job. Some code I have created is proprietory because there is no benefit to it being open, or it benefits from being closed. I also have an open source project I created myself, giving away thousands of hours of work for free. RMS, and the GPL is unforgiving of the programmer's personal right to his own code and to make decisions for himself. I place my open source contributions under a Creative Commons licence so that I place benefits, not restrictions on people who use my code.
Member since:2005-10-02
And with a Creative Commons license you grant fewer benefits than with the GPL.
You are talking bullshit about RMS and the GPL. RMS does not force you to release software under the GPL. And nobody forces you to use software released under the GPL in your projects.
The mere facts you can release software under another license than GPL proves you are lying and trolling.
EDIT: The reason why you use the CC licenses is because they grant _fewer_ benefits to other people than the GPL.
The GPL grants all benefits to other persons with the sole exception of the right to control other persons software. A fair'n'square deal.
EDIT: Oh dear. The zealots are on the run.
Edited 2007-02-04 23:19
Member since:2006-04-21
RMS, and the GPL is unforgiving of the programmer's personal right to his own code and to make decisions for himself.
People who believe that the GPL is business-unfriendly or communist or idealistic are the REAL idealists. There are two people involved in every transaction. Unlike both proprietary and open source software, free software guarantees that the user who purchases your product today will be able to use it tomorrow, even if you fall under a bus tonight.
Member since:2005-07-02
RMS, and the GPL is unforgiving of the programmer's personal right to his own code and to make decisions for himself. I place my open source contributions under a Creative Commons licence so that I place benefits, not restrictions on people who use my code.
How does the GPL limit a programmer's personal right to his own code? Oh, right, it doesn't, because a) the programmer *chooses* the license, and b) he can relicense the code under another license at any time (though he can't invalidate previous licenses).
Enough with the anti-GPL FUD. If you don't like it, don't use it, but drop the logically-fallacious grandstanding.
Edited 2007-02-05 00:23
Member since:
2005-10-02
Blah...
It is completely impossible to force people to be free. It is equally impossible to force people to use free software.
Nobody forces you to use GPL'ed software or BSD-licensed software. Not even if you are using files created by GPL'ed software. It is impossible to create vendor lock-in using open source and open standards therefore you cannot be forced to use free software/open source.
You can however be forced to use proprietary code due to vendor lock-in which happens when data are created by proprietary applications using proprietary standards.
If you don't want to use GPL'ed code, don't use it. If you want to use GPL'ed code, stick to the license.
AFAICT what you really want is FREE (as in GRATIS) access to all the work of FLOSS developers without having to comply with license terms. "Leecher" would be the appropriate term for you.
EDIT: Besides, it's perfectly possible (and legal) to link GPL'ed code to proprietary code and vice versa. Only in terms of distribution can it be a bit tricky, but this no different than having to pay for a patent license before distributing software using proprietary solutions.
Edited 2007-02-04 22:43