Re: Darwin Streaming Server
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 03:09:24PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 07:56:04AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 07:32:22PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> > >
> > > And then there should be a list of all the licenses that are approved to be free. Like GLP, LGPL, Artistic, etc. etc... It's not evil to
> > > have freeware in non-free sections - it just alerts the user to _read_ the license agreement. What is wrong with this approach?
> >
> > PS: my definition of liberal is a different one from rms. while i say
> > something is more liberal if it has less restrictions, rms thinks it is more
> > liberal if it forces others to place less restrctions on it. But are valid
> > views, I prefer the commercial friendly view :)
>
> This is only logical: If you are a company, and basing your infrastructure
> on free software, you don't want to give other companies the advantage to
> relicense your code and modifications on it, but you want to have a chance
> to get the modifications back and integrate them in your product, you want
> to preserve the freedom for everyone. This is what the GPL ensures, of
> course.
>
> If you just mixed up "commercial" with "proprietary", then I am sorry for my
> over long discussion of the point.
I think he did mixed up the two terms :) Anyway, what is wrong with using the mentioned website [GNU def. of free] and to be clear, I'm NOT
talking about GPL. Why not GNU definition of free and if something doesn't comply just put it in the non-free section - the reason is
menitoned in my original post.
And where it comes to commerticial friendly, IMHO, hardware manufacturers would be helping themselves if they released their driver code
under the terms of GPL or at least made it *free* [as on GNU]. That way ports to other OSes would be possible without them spending any
$$$. And maybe their original code could even impove. Right now, IMHO, it is the hardware manufacturers that are forcing MS Windows down
everyone's throats - those are the companies that are responsible for maintaining MS monopoly. But that's another story :)
- Adam
Reply to: