Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Jun 2012 23:56 UTC, submitted by Modafinil
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Samba Team and seven kernel hackers have come together with Software Freedom Conservancy to help efforts to ensure compliance with the GPL by those who implement Linux and other GPL software. Richard Hillesley talked to Bradley Kuhn of Software Freedom Conservancy, Jeremy Allison of Samba, and Matthew Garrett, who works in his spare time with the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers."
Thread beginning with comment 520506
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What a waste of time....
by kwan_e on Sun 3rd Jun 2012 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE: What a waste of time.... "
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

I've never cared for the GPL, and have always considered it akin to forced communism.


Unless you're forced to use GPL without having incorporated GPL into your code, it is NOT forced communism. You are FREE to not choose GPL.

Sure, you may be free to redistribute the software all you want, but when it comes to actually developing with it, you're not nearly so free when considering the possibility of using GPL'd code or libraries.


You're free not to use GPL libraries. This criticism I see all the time is just people complaining that they're not allowed to use other people's code without conditions.

Well guess what, normally, you'd have to BUY such code or write your own.

The FSF is as hypocritical as the US government when talking about freedom. What they both mean is, sure you're free to do what you want as long as you obey our rules. They allow you a limited subset of freedom which, to my mind, is not freedom at all.


The FSF never claims to be about "total freedom". The FSF, the GPL especially, is about SUSTAINED freedom and a pragmatic freedom. Read up on philosophy some time and learn about the actual effects of total freedom.

To those who say that companies like Oracle could've taken a public domain Linux or GCC and made it proprietary: you're absolutely right. They would be free to do that, just as the original developers would be free to maintain their own open source version.


Companies like Oracle would then be free to continue leeching off the efforts of the original developers without giving anything back.

In the end, everyone would have been better off and, if the proprietary Linux worked better (say by having a stable driver interface), that might have created a reason for the open source developers to strive for improvement in that area. Competition drives innovation, pure and simple.


Please explain the lack of drivers for the BSDs compared to Linux.

Linux isn't in competition with anything. Competition does not drive innovation in open source because money is not what is needed to survive.

Reply Parent Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The FSF never claims to be about "total freedom". The FSF, the GPL especially, is about SUSTAINED freedom and a pragmatic freedom. Read up on philosophy some time and learn about the actual effects of total freedom.


This just begs the following video to be posted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

Also:
http://mises.org/daily/2066
http://reason.com/blog/2006/12/27/the-anarchy-advantage-in-somal

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

I agree with almost the entirety of your post. But this below didn't compute for me:

"Linux isn't in competition with anything. Competition does not drive innovation in open source because money is not what is needed to survive."

Funnily enough, I think I disagree with almost every single point in there, haha.

Linux (both the platform and the kernel) is in competition with everything else on the market.

Some open source devs are lucky to be paid, but many just donate their own time, which drives alot of developers away from open sourcing their own work. I myself have a very difficult time finding a balance.

Even if money is not an issue, competition always has a presence, and that's a good thing for driving innovation.


Edit: with regards to the point you were initially responding to, I believe linux's good driver support has a lot to do with it's relative popularity. BSD's lack of support makes sense given that very few manufacturers are paying attention to it(them) and having fewer resources. I would not spontaneously attribute BSD's technical design to be the cause of it's lack of drivers (if I understood correctly, seems to be what was implied).

Edited 2012-06-03 04:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

kwan_e,

I agree with almost the entirety of your post. But this below didn't compute for me:

"Linux isn't in competition with anything. Competition does not drive innovation in open source because money is not what is needed to survive."

Funnily enough, I think I disagree with almost every single point in there, haha.

Linux (both the platform and the kernel) is in competition with everything else on the market.


I don't actually think it's true. Linux, like almost all open source software, is about "scratching your own itch". People contribute to Linux and open source, not because they want to compete and be the best and win awards. They're just contributing because they want something done and there's nothing around that fits their criteria, or that can be modified to fit their criteria.

If anything, what Linux competes for is attention, and it succeeds heavily in that area.

Even if money is not an issue, competition always has a presence, and that's a good thing for driving innovation.


Which exists whether or not GPL is used.

Edit: with regards to the point you were initially responding to, I believe linux's good driver support has a lot to do with it's relative popularity. BSD's lack of support makes sense given that very few manufacturers are paying attention to it(them) and having fewer resources. I would not spontaneously attribute BSD's technical design to be the cause of it's lack of drivers (if I understood correctly, seems to be what was implied).


The person I replied to claimed that if Linux were public domain, or at least not GPL'd, that it would magically have better driver support due to the kernel's internal interfaces being stabilized in face of competition.

Well, BSD is right there for such a speculation, and its lack of GPL has not borne the results claimed.

Reply Parent Score: 3