Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Sep 2005 22:40 UTC, submitted by Danijel Orsolic
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "This follow-up to the previously published article 'Ubuntu: Derivative or Fork?' takes into account most of everything that has been posted as a reaction to the first article to present a general opinion and compare them with facts derived from various resouces. You'll see that peace can be achieved between these two, and ultimately any GNU/Linux group out there."
Thread beginning with comment 37294
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: "Freedom""
stew
Member since:
2005-07-06

"stew, I think your beef is with the developer(s) of the software you would like to use for your application."

No, my beef is with using the word "freedom" for what is a collection of restrictions. "Freedom" is a moral word, a social word, maybe even a political. "Freedom" is something that is generally accepted as good.

Software and its licenses are not good or evil. They are not social, political or moral. Applying the word "freedom" to software doesn't make sense to me.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 05:06 in reply to "RE[10]: "Freedom""
Member since:

Software and its licenses are not good or evil. They are not social, political or moral. Applying the word "freedom" to software doesn't make sense to me.

Stew, I know that I wont persuade you by saying this, but there is a whole lot of people who actually very much believe that software licenses are a social issue, starting from Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org) to even Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org) to alot of their followers including so many GNU/Linux users around.

Feel free to disagree, but rights and restrictions to your use of software are very much a social issue. Just think of where would this society be if everyone thought the way you do, if there was no Free Software movement in the first place. It would most likely be a Microsoft monopoly and it could have hardly turned out in any different way. In such a monopoly they would be the one controlling everything from government to the little man using his computer because nowadays practically whole world runs on computers and computer software. Their will be done, so to say. And if you think that there would always be someone coming up like Google today to threaten their monopoly think of the fact that even Google itself very much used Free Software to get where it is (GNU/Linux powered servers at the least).

So, if you think that such a monopoly has nothing to do with ethics, morality or even politics, then you must have been just teleported to this planet from who knows where and are yet to learn about Earthlings. It is exactly licenses like GNU GPL that have prevented this overwhealming monopoly to come to this fatal point and allow for freer development and use of software and information technology where millions have their say instead of just MS (and other corporations) employees.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not against corporations. I'm just against monopolies.

Thank you
Danijel

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[12]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 05:11 in reply to "RE[11]: "Freedom""
Member since:

Just to correct myself a bit here..

It is exactly licenses like GNU GPL that have prevented this overwhealming monopoly to come to this fatal point and allow for freer development and use of software and information technology where millions have their say instead of just MS (and other corporations) employees.

Not employees, but their bosses.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[12]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 05:18 in reply to "RE[11]: "Freedom""
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

"Just think of where would this society be if everyone thought the way you do, if there was no Free Software movement in the first place."

You are not putting these words in my mouth.
I have nothing against open source software and I don't see how you would get that impression from my previous posts. Most of the software I have released so far was open source (few of it GPL licensed). But I have something against using the word "freedom" the way it is used by the FSF. Just because I disagree with the FSF and prefer the LGPL over GPL doesn't mean I am against freedom or open source software, so please don't try to put such words in my mouth.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[12]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 08:24 in reply to "RE[11]: "Freedom""
Member since:

Stew, I know that I wont persuade you by saying this, but there is a whole lot of people who actually very much believe that software licenses are a social issue, starting from Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org)

Yes, we know that their beliefs go beyond a merely technical, economic interest in software, but you have to understand that the vast majority of people don't think like them. Most people look at software as a tool or a technical curiousity and don't agree with the FSF definitions of "freedom".

Feel free to disagree, but rights and restrictions to your use of software are very much a social issue. Just think of where would this society be if everyone thought the way you do, if there was no Free Software movement in the first place

And what are these "rights" and "restrictions". Does someone have a "right" to have source code. Do these restrictions include the ability of companies to control the sale of software they produce? What you people are trying to do is put software at a higher level than any other tool and most people don't. You guys want to get "philosophical" about it.

The free software movement has been around for a long time. It didn't start with Stallman, it was around way before he came upon the scene. You can't stop free software so the hypothetical is ridiculous.

In such a monopoly they would be the one controlling everything from government to the little man using his computer because nowadays practically whole world runs on computers and computer software.

Once again a ridiculous hypothetical based on an imaginary world that wouldn't happen in a capitalist society. Microsoft can't "control" everything. There would always be others in the software market, whether it be proprietary or open source.

So, if you think that such a monopoly has nothing to do with ethics, morality or even politics, then you must have been just teleported to this planet from who knows where and are yet to learn about Earthlings.

Translation: "you must join my cult". You are laughed at....seriously.

It is exactly licenses like GNU GPL that have prevented this overwhealming monopoly to come to this fatal point and allow for freer development and use of software and information technology where millions have their say instead of just MS (and other corporations) employees.

You have no evidence to back that up

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[11]: "Freedom"
by archiesteel on Wed 28th Sep 2005 05:48 in reply to "RE[10]: "Freedom""
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Software and its licenses are not good or evil. They are not social, political or moral. Applying the word "freedom" to software doesn't make sense to me.

Perhaps, however the case could be argued that the prevalence of a certain economic model with regards to software has an economic impact, which in turns means that it has social and political effects as well.

Like it or not, almost everything we do has economical, social and political ramifications. This goes from putting gas in our cars to where we shop to what we eat.

As software becomes more and more present in our lives, so does its economic importance increases (not necessarily as a marketed product, by the way). Access to low-cost/free software is very important to developing economies, and that includes freedom from vendor lock-in.

I know many people are not interested in the political aspects of software licensing, but that doesn't meant that they don't exist...

Reply Parent Score: 1