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 505834
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Rant
by lucas_maximus on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Rant"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18


Who is making money off the BSD's? Oh those poor companies Apple, Cisco, Juniper, yes totally unlike those companies making money out off GPL licenced code.


As I said they are large companies. Not individual developers.


FSF employs people to write software. GCC (software flagship of FSF) is developed by full-time software professionals hired by a large number of companies.


Is Richard Stallman hiring them or the large companies? Who employs them exactly?

Obviously not all 'software engineers' are created equal because being a programmer and working with programmers all day I can say that it's not a hard concept. If someone can understand the concept of 'if you use this code in your project you have to pay me', then they can grasp the concept of [i]'if you use this code in your project you have to release the source code of your project'.[/]


You missed the point that I repeated again and again.

It isn't the license (a developer can release his code under any license they see fit, and I will defend that like free speech).

It is that they think that the license must be GPL or compatible in their ideology.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Rant
by Valhalla on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 22:36 in reply to "RE[8]: Rant"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

As I said they are large companies. Not individual developers.

Who are the individual developers making money out of releasing BSD licenced open source code? You linked to a FreeBSD article claiming that GPL favours large companies, I responded by saying that the same goes for BSD, and the same holds true for proprietary code aswell, as is the case in any business model.


Is Richard Stallman hiring them or the large companies? Who employs them exactly?

So unless Richard Stallman is personally hiring developers then he is against professional developers? FSF has employed a number of programmers over the years, I can't say that RMS hired them personally.

Can you point out to me where Stallman says he is against professional developers?

It is that they think that the license must be GPL or compatible in their ideology.

Why does that disturb you? They are in no way forcing you to follow their wishes.

Compare that to Microsoft saying that OEM's can't licence their operating systems unless they block the use of other operating systems on that OEM hardware. You defended Microsoft in this enforcement, but you find FSF wishing that all software would be licenced as GPL or compatible to be extremism?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Rant
by lucas_maximus on Sat 4th Feb 2012 12:22 in reply to "RE[9]: Rant"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Who are the individual developers making money out of releasing BSD licenced open source code? You linked to a FreeBSD article claiming that GPL favours large companies, I responded by saying that the same goes for BSD, and the same holds true for proprietary code aswell, as is the case in any business model.



Can you point out to me where Stallman says he is against professional developers?


Why does that disturb you? They are in no way forcing you to follow their wishes.


They would if they had the chance.

Compare that to Microsoft saying that OEM's can't licence their operating systems unless they block the use of other operating systems on that OEM hardware. You defended Microsoft in this enforcement, but you find FSF wishing that all software would be licenced as GPL or compatible to be extremism?


It not about what he didn't or did say. It pretty clear he hates them, in several places he pretty much says "in my world they won't get paid as much". Most of the virtues of "free software" is that it costs nothing, I think it is more about certain groups of people acting like cheapskates.

I don't think you quite understand. Microsoft values the developers (who I am one) somewhat over the user. I get damn good development tools and give them away for pretty much nothing (yes I know that is too hook me in, but that is alright because it pays well, I know what I am getting into thanks).

The GPL favours the code as it is some sort of sentient being. I cannot take the code legally and do what I like with it unlike say the MIT license (so it is not truly free) and The original developer won't make any money from me.

As for Win 8 tablets, I don't know why you would buy something certified for Win8 when you intend to run something else, seems a bit silly to me. Many of the strongest opponents to it were saying that tablets that can run Linux are more expensive. I see lots of moaning about it, however they aren't willing to put the money where their mouth is.

Reply Parent Score: 2