Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Feb 2009 10:27 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Even though some believe that Microsoft's recent patent lawsuit against TomTom is a prelude to an all-out legal assault on Linux, that doesn't stop Bob Muglia, the company's president of Server and Tools Business, to look into the future and state that Microsoft's products will look more and more to open source software. In fact, he predicts most Microsoft products will have open source in them at some point.
Thread beginning with comment 350967
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Viva la GPL
by mnem0 on Fri 27th Feb 2009 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Viva la GPL"
mnem0
Member since:
2006-03-23

Correction: how open source development works by YOUR definition.


Let's just say that; there is a reason why the GPL is the most common open source license out there. Most of the people actually writing open source code prefer to use the GPL.

It doesn't have to be "religious" at all, just look at Linus etc. It's about common sense; if you appreciate and value the openness, then you will protect it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Viva la GPL
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 27th Feb 2009 15:21 in reply to "RE[4]: Viva la GPL"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Let's just say that; there is a reason why the GPL is the most common open source license out there. Most of the people actually writing open source code prefer to use the GPL.


An argument based on ubiquity rarely has any merit, and in this case, it's no different. I figured that by now we in the operating system world realised that. Just because something's used more often doesn't mean it's better.

Look, a BSD license provides more freedom because it offers more choice. That's a cold and hard fact. The GPL tries to protect freedom, and it does that well - but it only archives that by limiting freedom.

Which isn't a bad thing at all - it's just that stating that the GPL provides more freedom because it limits freedom is, well, a bit retarded.

Edited 2009-02-27 15:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Viva la GPL
by segedunum on Fri 27th Feb 2009 19:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Viva la GPL"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a cold and hard fact. The GPL tries to protect freedom, and it does that well - but it only archives that by limiting freedom.

The only freedom that matters here is the freedom of the code, because without it there is no open source development going on. It's locked away in proprietary extensions or off-shoots that could have been put into the main project itself. The code written there is certainly not free to break away from that for the benefit of other developers who ensured that that code could be written in the first place. What about their freedom?

....it's just that stating that the GPL provides more freedom because it limits freedom is, well, a bit retarded.

That's because you have a narrow definition and understanding of what freedom actually matters here.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[6]: Viva la GPL
by dagw on Sat 28th Feb 2009 12:44 in reply to "RE[5]: Viva la GPL"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Look, a BSD license provides more freedom because it offers more choice. That's a cold and hard fact. The GPL tries to protect freedom, and it does that well - but it only archives that by limiting freedom.

You're mixing together the freedom of the developer and the freedom of the code. Each license choses to prioritizes one by limiting the other. It's pointless to discuss relatove 'freedom' without first stating who's or what's freedom your talking about.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Viva la GPL
by missionmom on Sat 28th Feb 2009 22:37 in reply to "RE[5]: Viva la GPL"
missionmom Member since:
2008-07-08

Thom, no matter how you feel about something I just don't get using the word retarded. It's just wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Viva la GPL
by bert64 on Sun 1st Mar 2009 10:08 in reply to "RE[5]: Viva la GPL"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23


An argument based on ubiquity rarely has any merit, and in this case, it's no different. I figured that by now we in the operating system world realised that. Just because something's used more often doesn't mean it's better.

Look, a BSD license provides more freedom because it offers more choice. That's a cold and hard fact. The GPL tries to protect freedom, and it does that well - but it only archives that by limiting freedom.

Which isn't a bad thing at all - it's just that stating that the GPL provides more freedom because it limits freedom is, well, a bit retarded.


Yes, the GPL limits freedoms in order to ensure that everyone receives a subset of the most important freedoms. We live in a society that does exactly the same thing as the GPL, while "completely free" software would be closer to anarchy.

Society has laws which take away your freedom to kill, to steal and to do a whole load of other things. Would you prefer to have these freedoms back, at the risk of someone else killing or imprisoning you arbitrarily?

When you give people too much freedom, a few of the strongest will rise up and use that freedom they have to strip any level of freedom from the masses. In the case of anarchy you will end up with a dictator or a bunch of warlords.. In the case of software you will end up with a few large companies like microsoft embracing and extending the open code to produce new proprietary incompatible versions that are widely enough used that the original open version becomes useless.

Reply Parent Score: 1