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 37329
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 08:24 UTC 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 (

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