"One of the highlights of my visit to San Diego for the Red Hat Summit was the opportunity to sit down one-on-one with Professor Eben Moglen. From that interview, we have selected six segments on various topics for your viewing pleasure, and will be publishing one each day this week. First up, an explanation of all the things that GPLv3 is about other than the MS/Novell deal."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
[/i]Otherwise, I can only surmise that you do not believe that software should be free (maybe instead you just believe that open source is a superior development method).[/i]
"""
That view is too black and white for my tastes. I believe that OSS *can* be a supperior development model. But not always. One need only look to business accounting and point of sale to see how dismally OSS has fared in some important areas.
I believe that the freedom associated with FOSS is highly desirable, but not the moral imperative that the FSF and Groklaw seem to think it is. It's not immoral to license one's work how one sees fit, be the license open or closed.
"""
You regularly attack both the FSF and Groklaw,
"""
And you regularly act as the FSF's "yes" man. But I usually don't bring up the point.
I cause myself a lot of grief and frustration acting as the lone voice for FOSS in the consulting company for which I work, and have done so for 11 years. I believe in FOSS. But I refuse to take the fundamentalist viewpoint that you, the FSF, and Groklaw endorse.
And I don't think that it helps your cause to continually attack people who are really on your side, simply bacause they don't take things to as much of an extreme as you would prefer.
In general, I find that the body of FOSS is developing a steadily worsening auto-immune disorder.
Member since:2006-08-26
It's not immoral to license one's work how one sees fit, be the license open or closed.
This is the kind of opinion that is constructive to debate. To try to be more on-topic, here's a counter-opinion, which is very much in keeping on why anyone should consider the GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html
Of course, the big step is really not the GPL itself, but any license which respects the four freedoms: X11, revised BSD, etc.
Edited 2007-05-30 00:46
Member since:2005-07-08
Did you guys not read my post? I said that we shouldn't be arguing semantics on why FOSS is good or to what extent FOSS is good. My point is that FOSS is better than proprietary software for users. Proprietary software isn't immoral, but it's far less moral than FOSS. If you believe this, you are officially part of the solution. Now shake hands and remember that you're playing for the same team.
I believe in FOSS. But I refuse to take the fundamentalist viewpoint that you, the FSF, and Groklaw endorse.
Well, please reconsider, because the GPL has always been a fundamentalist license. In other words, it's strong copyleft. If you don't like the terms, then you can't distribute the code. I'm not sure whether you object to the GPLv3, the FSF, or the general notion that copyright is taken seriously in the FOSS community. But whatever it is, I get the sense that you reject the packaging of the message rather than the message itself. If this is the case, then you're one of those "independent thinkers" that hate when other people tell them what to think. Just read the license text and make up your own mind if that makes you more comfortable.
In general, I find that the body of FOSS is developing a steadily worsening auto-immune disorder.
What do you mean? We work great amongst ourselves! The problem is when we have to play well with others. As free software becomes more prominent in the software industry, these difficulties will become more prominent. Maybe we could be a little more mature about it. I admit that some of us are a bit socially awkward and unprofessional. But there's very little we can do. We have rules, and we have to hold parties accountable to them. We'd love to have a way to allow GPL code to be relicensed under a less restrictive license (e.g. BSD) so long as it does not subsequently become licensed under a more restrictive license. But we can't do that within the framework of copyright law.
Considering the fact that we are in the process of overhauling the rules that govern our movement, we're doing pretty well. Change is disruptive, but we'll emerge all the better for it.
Member since:
2006-08-26
I like FOSS for both practical and idealistic reasons. I grok it being, in part, a social movement. But I prefer my idealistic social movements without the "spin".
You are simply not acknowledging the full picture. The media will try to spin whatever they get no matter what. What's wrong with the FSF insisting on precise language to minimize others turning the FSF's own words against them?
Moreover, your comparison to corporations does not hold water. The FSF operates out in the open with a long public record of activity and with grassroots funding. Corporations have no conscience, thrive on secrecy, have no human face, and use far, far more money to pay the media to mold public opinion. Advertising alone suffices to make the comparison ridiculous.
You regularly attack both the FSF and Groklaw, both of which are important means of promoting free software. If you could point to a viable alternative which has as its main aim the promotion of the four software freedoms as a social objective, I would be eager to consider it. Otherwise, I can only surmise that you do not believe that software should be free (maybe instead you just believe that open source is a superior development method). Moreover, to oppose the free software message--which is not the same as promoting nonfree software, I realize--you can only resort to attacking the messengers and not the message.