[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Nomination question: Redhat



I'm a bit surprised at this RH bashing over something that we should be
agreeing with.

The move to LGPL increases the freedom of software because it allows
non-GPL software (which is still free under another license) to
"incorporate" such libraries without incorporating the GPL as the license.

The other side of this bashing attitude seems to imply that a system that
makes it easier to run "proprietary" software is inately evil. I disagree
strongly with this position. One of the things that attracts me to Linux
over M$ is the difference in their attitude to each other. Linux works
hard to incorporate those features needed to execute and access
proprietary systems. From file system support to programs like wine and
dosemu, Linux works to give the user the greatest flexibility in a system.
M$, on the other hand adds features to their software (the 64K ping comes
to mind) that not only make it incompatible with non-M$ software, are even
distructive to the rest of the participants.

It's time for us to stop propogating the idea that this is a battle
between the prorietary and the free software models. The free software
model can "defeat" the proprietary model by being more accomodating than
the proprietary code, by producing "better" software. Attacks on the
sofware or it's model are non-productive.

On a final note, look closely at our social contract. It specifically
makes the point that part of our job is to support our user's needs for
non-free software by providing an adequate platform for this software.

Debian is never going to "go commercial" if it doesn't easily integrate
proprietary code packages. The Linux Standard Base committee is working on
those basic principles, to which Debian gave its resounding support.

Technical compatibility will allow free software to "absorb" and possibly
even convert such proprietary software to the free software development
model. (Netscape is one example)

As I have stated many times, commercial desires are not necessarily evil.
If you can't sell free software, it isn't free of distribution
restrictions.

Luck,


On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 05:12:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > But at the same time many people are saying they're moving away from the
> > > GPL for libraries as much as they can.  They like the GPL for apps, but
> > > not for libs.
> > 
> > Is that a bad thing? GPL for libraries limits your ability to
> > develop non-GPL software, which some could consider a limit on your freedom.
> 
> I wanted to be nice about how I worded this, but other people have not
> been so my echo probably won't add much.  Please note this is what I've
> heard others say, and I have no backing for this whatsoever and while it
> concerns me, I'm not going to pass judgement without more solid info..
> 
> Redhat has supposedly been removing GPL libs from their dist the same way
> we removed KDE.  They don't like the GPL for libs and instead of
> supporting the authors who want their software to be kept free they would
> rather essentially sell out on the whole free software idea and try to
> convince proprietary software vendors to port their apps as quick as
> possible to Redhat since Redhat is quickly becoming the dist that allows
> the most exploit.
> 
> Essentially, the accusation is that Redhat is selling out on us by not
> allowing GPL libs and replacing GPL libs where they can with Redhat
> written code under the LGPL.  I see no reason why they would be doing
> this, but the argument is the same we've probably all heard by now:  Sun
> and Netscape don't want to take out Microsoft for being an evil monopoly,
> they want to replace Microsoft as the next one.  Well, the argument is
> that Redhat is trying to do this as well.
> 
> 
> Some people possibly even reading this list right now (Kysh is almost
> certainly) are probably laughing and saying "I told you so", however I
> haven't seen evidence, only accusation.  I have seen Redhat employees
> involved with the threads which spawn these accusations, but I haven't
> yet seen one of them admit to or refute these claims that they're trying
> to remove all GPL libs from their system---not that I would expect them
> to address such ugly things really, true or not.
> 
> I suspect over the next few months we'll find out what they're really up
> to.  I'm sure the accusations that Redhat is an evil corporation that is
> ready to sell out the moment it looks like they could get away with it is
> not new.  The "proof" that they're removing the only protection to
> prevent exploit, if indeed what they're doing is certainly concerning and
> worth consideration.
> 
> 
> I don't suggest we lynch them or anything like that, obviously.  So don't
> get any ideas.  =>
> 
> -- 
> "Shall we play a game?"  -- WOPR
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 
> 
> 

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


Reply to: