Re: Re: license questions.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:37:00PM +0200, Fredrik Persson wrote:
> In my case, I've considered a lot of ways of looking at things and I've come
> to the conclusion that the FSF philosophy is a good one, that I like. I assure
> you that I've looked nigh and far, so short-sighted is not something I can agree
> with you on.
As another viewpoint: I'm not nessecarily gungho on the whole FSF
philosophy. But free software gives us the freedom to let Debian and
Redhat and Ada Core Technologies exist, and I find that cool. I also
find it cool the way that free software lets programs grow. The world
did not need yet another Unix kernel in 1992. But because of free
software, that kernel became the greatest of all. Cygnus (past times),
RedHat, Suse, Ada Core Technologies, Apple, Be, AMD and Intel have all
helped make GCC one of the greatest compilers ever. A good free program
can grow after you've stopped taking care of it, can grow far outside
what you would have been capable of growing, and can grow even after
you're dead. And unlike a commerical program, which can do that, there's
at least one branch always under your direct control; Linus can still
release Linux 2.5.183, no matter how many people have made forks or how
many people are using them.
Yes, commerical software helps pay the bills; freeware lets you keep
absolute control. But free software can let your program be something
amazing; not just yet another C compiler, or yet another Un*x kernel,
but one of the best.
David Starner - email@example.com
Falshe fridn iz beser vi a rikhtige krig. /
A bad peace is better than a good war. - Yiddish Proverb