Re: [OT] Re: microsoft.com -> NetBSD
Look, I am as much for free software as the rest, but I think the FSF
tends to start brush fires to justify their own existence. I believe
they have done some good work, but many things they do seem to be
counterproductive to the cause. For instance, their latest attack, on
Linus Torvalds, claiming that the Linux Kernel is Open Core, and that
"Linux Kernel Is Torvalds' 'Bait and Switch'"
(http://www.osnews.com/story/24009/FSFLA_Linux_Kernel_Is_Torvalds_Bait_and_Switch_
and http://lwn.net/Articles/413927/) Why? Because you can install
binary blobs on your Linux system if you _choose to_? That makes the
kernel Open Core? And Linus is intentionally drawing people in to
software heresy?
I understand people like Nate's position. However, I also understand
the need for some proprietary software. If it weren't for some of it,
Linux would still be a garage project. For the last 12 years, I have
been able to earn a living as a professional Linux system admin. We
would not be where we are without uptake on the part of companies. The
human genome would not have been mapped by Linux, military systems
would not be running Linux, etc. It's a balancing act that we have,
thus far, done, IMHO, a pretty decent job of.
Again, I am not trying to start a flame war, but I am a pragmatist. I
would rather get Linux in an organization, even if that means that
temporarily (e.g. application level) or semi-permanently (e.g. binary
blobs for proprietary hardware...until equivalent free drivers are
developed) using something proprietary. I think getting Linux in the
door is a win, even if it is not 100% free.
--b
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Klistvud <quotations@aliceadsl.fr> wrote:
> Dne, 31. 12. 2010 05:45:58 je Nate Bargmann napisal(a):
>>
>> * On 2010 30 Dec 12:50 -0600, Brad Alexander wrote:
>> > > I can only say that I love BSD licenses. I know many people can be
>> > > anger
>> > > by this but I find that BSD licences are the best exponent for the
>> > > true
>> > > and unconditional user freedom.
>> >
>> > I agree with Camaleón. Not to end 2010 with a flame war, but this is
>> > the one thing that irritates me most about the FSF. They advocate free
>> > software, which is a laudable goal, but they seem to only acknowledge
>> > it *if* you conform to their definition of free. By definition, if a
>> > user chooses to, they should be *free* to use commercial software and
>> > be as equally accepted as someone who opts not to have any binary
>> > blobs on their system. In their own way, Stallman and the FSF are
>> > trying to accomplish lock-in as much as the vendors...
>>
>> Sorry, but as a contributor to a small Free Software project licensed
>> under GPL and LGPL, I respectfully disagree. Much has been provided to
>> me because of the GPL and I believe that my contributions warrant the
>> same opportunity by others. I do not want any of my contributions taken
>> proprietary by *any* entity for *any* reason. I also do not see the GPL
>> as lock-in, rather as lock-out.
>
> Couldn't agree more. It's a war. We really shouldn't fool ourselves about
> that. Countering the immense power of proprietary software companies with
> non-viral free licenses is like fighting against tanks with just bare hands.
> Corporations -- software ones included -- are *not* like us. They may
> contain some "decent people" but they are not themselves "decent people"
> like we are, they are soulless entities. We shouldn't make the mistake of
> personifying them, that is, of projecting our inner traits of honesty,
> decency, humanity, honor, or morality onto them: they have none of those.
> They just have *agendas*.
>
> GPL gives developers of free software at least half a chance. It saddens me
> to see how many people fail, or refuse, to see that.
>
> --
> Cheerio,
>
> Klistvud http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com
> Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to me.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.orgwith a subject
> of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293792231.6925.0@compax
>
>
Reply to: