Linked by ddc_ on Thu 2nd Feb 2012 23:22 UTC
Slackware, Slax There are different reasons people use Unix-like operating systems, including configurable, availability free of charge, powerful command line interface an many more. Some people are motivated by the moral issue: they reject non-free software. Specifically for such users Free Software Foundation developed Guidelines for Free System Distributions and created the list of absolutely free ("as in freedom") distributions. In this article we are going to look at the most recent entry on the list - Parabola GNU/Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 505821
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
*Sigh*
by ToddB on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 16:45 UTC
ToddB
Member since:
2012-01-25

The GPL thing has always irked me (its one of the most confusing and verbose licenses to read). The use of the word free and then claiming it is freedom is so misleading. Their definition of freedom is if I want to modify their program for my personal use I am obligated/forced "The opposite of freedom" to make that available. This only applies to the source code not the binaries. Then you have people coming to projects that are BSD licensed and begging/spamming maintainer to change to GPL license. Open Sourcing an application is only useful to a programmer, not the general populace. I know RMS believes everyone should be a programmer, modify software to work as they want it then commit the changes back. I personally just want software that works, if I have to pay for it thats fine. The whole FOSS, firmware thing is just a pointless debate. The user will install what they need to get their system working, and by not including ability to get firmware you are just making the users life more difficult not helping him. For what benefit?

Reply Score: 0

RE: *Sigh*
by drcouzelis on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 18:59 in reply to "*Sigh*"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

Their definition of freedom is if I want to modify their program for my personal use I am obligated/forced "The opposite of freedom" to make that available.


That's incorrect.

You may do whatever you want with the source code of GPL software for personal use. If you decide to modify it AND distribute it, then the GPL states that you need to provide the source code of the changes you made.

Open Sourcing an application is only useful to a programmer, not the general populace. I know RMS believes everyone should be a programmer, modify software to work as they want it then commit the changes back. I personally just want software that works, if I have to pay for it thats fine.


With free and open source software, I have the freedom to modify the software myself or pay anyone else to do it. This is useful for everyone, not just programmers.

Richard Stallman doesn't believe everyone should be a programmer.

As for you wanting software that works even if you have to pay for it, cost isn't really relative to this article. There's nothing preventing you from selling or purchasing free and open source software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: *Sigh*
by KenJackson on Sat 4th Feb 2012 17:21 in reply to "*Sigh*"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Open Sourcing an application is only useful to a programmer, not the general populace.

Netscape Navigator is the poster child for proprietary software that adopted the free software model. And IIRC, Firefox was forked from Navigator when Firefox's authors became unhappy with Navigator's stagnation.

The result is IMO the best browser available. Everyone that likes Firefox has benefited greatly from Netscape's decision.

The argument could even be made that IE users have benefited from the Firefox fork. Would IE have ever developed tabbed browsing without it?

Reply Parent Score: 2