The latest issue of the FreeBSD newsletter contains a letter from the Vice President of the FreeBSD Foundation about the GPLv3. "On June 29th, the Free Software Foundation unveiled version 3 of the GNU General Public license. Even though the majority of software included in the FreeBSD distribution is not covered by any version of the GPL, our community cannot ignore this very popular license or its most recent incarnation. Through extremely successful evangelization, and the popularity of Linux, the misconception that OpenSource and the GPL are synonymous has become pervasive."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2006-03-12
"Regarding your quibble over the use of the word "religion", I already dealt with that in a response to butters. Go read that if you want to.
But let's do a simple comparison.
Most religions have their "Satan". GPL's has its "Satan" (Microsoft, Bill Gates, etc). Most religions have a messianic-like figure. GPL has RMS. Most religions set forth the ideals of what constitutes morality."
That is the funniest comment I have read for a long time. I would personally love you to stretch this analogy as much as possible. I'm dying to know where it will lead does Alan Cox get nailed to a cross!?
Member since:2005-11-15
Most religions have their "Satan".
Most religions deal with the supernatural concepts, such as Satan. It is not the case in this particular situation, which means that the rest of your analogy goes right out of the window. Please, learn what the world "religion" means in this specific case before you decide to use it.
Now, the insults you got were the insults you deserved. Stop behaving like an idiot, and I promise to stop treating you as one. Furthermore, the fact that you choose to concentrate on my insults so much makes me think that you are incapable of concentrating on my points. Remember what I told you about behaving like an idiot?
BDS has NONE of the characteristics that I mention above. Therefore, I regard GPL as being more "religious" than BDS.
Just because you disagree with certain provisions of a license does not give you the right to demonize it. I have asked you for some logical justification of your attitudes. All I've seen so far were improperly constructed analogies ("GPL = religion") and cheap emotional appeals about "ethics", none of which constitute valid logical argumentation.
Now that that's settled (good grief), why don't you answer the question I directed to you? What is your take on the meaning "GPL2 and later"?
My take is that the license itself talks only of "... or any later version", and when it does, it says exactly what I said: nobody is forcing anyone to use future versions of GPL, which is why the BDS guy doesn't know what he's yapping about, and neither do you. Now, stop quoting questionable Slashdot posts in order to support your point of view, 'cause it just doesn't wash. You gotta try harder next time.
Member since:
2006-07-04
""What's your take on the meaning of "GPL2 and later"?"
No, how about you respond to the main point of my comment -- you know, the one you oh, so conveniently forgot to notice? Want me to refresh your all of sudden decrepit memory? Here we go:"
My "decrepit" memory? Is it simply impossible for an OSS advocate to make a point without personal insults?
Regarding your quibble over the use of the word "religion", I already dealt with that in a response to butters. Go read that if you want to.
But let's do a simple comparison.
Most religions have their "Satan". GPL's has its "Satan" (Microsoft, Bill Gates, etc). Most religions have a messianic-like figure. GPL has RMS. Most religions set forth the ideals of what constitutes morality. RMS says software must meet his definition of "free" in order to be "ethical", and that closed-source software itself is "unethical" and that those that produce such software are "unethical".
BDS has NONE of the characteristics that I mention above. Therefore, I regard GPL as being more "religious" than BDS.
Now, I noticed that YOU deliberately missed my point. I said that Tivo could use BSD and avoid GPL's religious baggage. You don't like the use of the word "religious"? Fine. I'll rephrase: Tivo, et al, can use BSD and avoid the FSF/RMS baggage that accompanies GPL.
Now that that's settled (good grief), why don't you answer the question I directed to you? What is your take on the meaning "GPL2 and later"?
Edited 2007-09-01 21:08