Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:02 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
GNU, GPL, Open Source Eric S. Raymond is one of the three big figures in open source, together with Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman. During a talk for the Long Island Linux User Group, he made some interesting statements about the GPL, namely that the GPL is no longer needed due to the way the open source movement works.
Thread beginning with comment 354788
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No
by Beta on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:17 UTC
Beta
Member since:
2005-07-06

What, wait, did he just say ‘leave it to the market’?
Has he not seen the recent economic market take a rather large nose dive because there was zero control to stop companies being moronic?
It might be tedious but it keeps us all honest.

Reply Score: 9

RE: No
by google_ninja on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:34 in reply to "No"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I can't really speak for every sector of the industry/every part of the world, but I was looking at job postings recently, and there is plenty of work in Toronto for .net developers right now, more then usual. If the recession is hitting the tech industry, I don't feel it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: No
by Beta on Tue 24th Mar 2009 19:07 in reply to "RE: No"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

I can't really speak for every sector of the industry/every part of the world, but I was looking at job postings recently, and there is plenty of work in Toronto for .net developers right now, more then usual. If the recession is hitting the tech industry, I don't feel it.


That has nothing to do with what I said.

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE: No
by diegocg on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:38 in reply to "No"
RE[2]: No
by pooo on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:57 in reply to "RE: No"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

Dude, you need to educate yourself on how the GPL works before you open your mouth again. You just made a complete fool of yourself.

By releasing the GPLv3 *zero* people who have licensed their code under GPLv2 were affected unless they chose to upgrade their licensing.

Really what we are seeing with people like you is a *religious* or *political* distaste for the GPL and not a logical objection. So I guess that is sort of the definition of "fool".

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: No
by ichi on Tue 24th Mar 2009 19:14 in reply to "RE: No"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

GPL's "v2 or later" is optional, you are making it sound as if poor programmers were being imposed the license updates by the evil guys from the FSF.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE: No
by wannabe geek on Wed 25th Mar 2009 00:11 in reply to "No"
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

What, wait, did he just say ‘leave it to the market’?
Has he not seen the recent economic market take a rather large nose dive because there was zero control to stop companies being moronic?
It might be tedious but it keeps us all honest.


I know this is not an economics blog, but just for the record, not everyone agrees with that explanation. For instance, see:

http://mises.org/story/2895

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: No
by KenJackson on Sat 28th Mar 2009 01:43 in reply to "No"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I'm not sure if I'm quite willing to join ESR in abandoning the GPL. I think it's done a lot of good.

Still, I respect ESR. He's a thinker. A visionary. He deserves to have his words considered.

because there was zero control to stop companies being moronic?


You've got to be kidding! We've enjoyed 200+ years of free-market excellence. Recessions come and go. Morons in private companies can only do so much damage. But morons in Washington may yet destroy the fabric of the nation.

Reply Parent Score: 2