story type: "humor"?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tbuitenh Apr 08, 2011 8:16 AM EDT |
Although it is a pretty silly article, I did not laugh. Daniel, since you and I use different definitions of "freedom", let's make sure we're talking about the same thing by renaming the "four freedoms" to "four features". Some users prefer having these features over (any) other features. Nobody is forcing any software developers to include those features. - Feature 0: Permission to run the program for any purpose. I have no comments on this one. - Feature 1: Permission to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish. In other words: availability of the source code. Let's split this one, because it's really two different things. - Feature 1a: Permission to read the source code. When the source code is not available, there is no way to verify that the program will do only what the developer claims it does, in other words that it is not a trojan horse that will harm the user. If you don't demand this feature, you're giving the developer a blank check to do whatever they please with your computer. Unless the developer signs a contract that states exactly what the program will and will not do, of course - but I don't see mass market proprietary software developers doing that, their EULAs are rather the opposite. Is it foolish to sign a blank check? Yes. Is it immoral to give fools blank checks to sign? I say yes, you may say no, and then I will say I don't like you :P . - Feature 1b: Permission to modify and recompile the source code. No comments on this one other than that it's hard to prevent once 1a is available. - Feature 2: Permission to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. This is the developer promising not to use his government-granted monopoly enforcement. Something that you, as an anarcho-capitalist, ought to like. This is compatible with GPL-style licenses that use enforcement only to ensure non-enforcement is not abused by others who are willing to use enforcement. - Feature 3: Permission to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Permission to innovate. An example: if Qt wasn't available freely and for free, my current project (a great-grandchild of the Passiflora project you're familiar with, which had too many serious flaws) would not happen. So openness obviously does enable innovation. The openness of FreeBSD helped the "closed innovative" Apple a lot, by the way. On the other hand, I'm not explaining my current project to anyone and am definitely not sharing source code before the first release. I'll keep features added after the first release secret, too. That's not open. I do this to make sure copycats of details can't outcompete me before the whole vision has become a completed product. In that sense closedness also enables innovation. It seems that closedness before a feature is completed and openness afterwards is best for innovation overall. Unless you're using the "design by committee" method, then making the whole world your committee might be good. I don't know, I don't like design by committee. |
| hkwint Apr 08, 2011 8:36 AM EDT |
Changed it, I think Daniel made an error and meant 'editorial', though I'm not sure. GPL - like everybody should know by now I guess - is not about your freedom, but about freedom of the code. In Daniel's article, I come across "my, my, my". Of course, GPL is not designed for "my freedom". And why openness is imperative to innovation is also simple: Apple is open, and that's the only reason why it is innovative. Because, the people working at Apple, they share their ideas and code amongst each other. Would they have kept it 'closed' from their colleagues, innovation would almost have been impossible. So it's just where you put the boundary. Indeed, talking about the "media stack" and then saying 'freedom doesn't cause blabla' on the other hand is a joke, as everybody knows Linux is bad at media because many media formats are closed. So it's a proof of the contrary to what Daniel is suggesting: Because media formats are closed, there's lack of innovation. And why did the innovation of those media formats happen in first place? Indeed, because companies (Sony, Philips, Microsoft and others in the joint video team working groups) were in fact opening up their technologies and sharing with other companies! It's not that hard after all, just some silly wrong assumptions in the article. Daniel thinks no further than "if there's a closed boundary at the walls of the factory / of the industry, than something is closed". Think different, there can be openness inside a company or industry as well! I'm at an R&D department, and why can we innovate? Indeed, because we share ideas amongst colleagues! Of course, not with the competition, but it's still openness which drives innovation. |
| r_a_trip Apr 08, 2011 9:24 AM EDT |
What exactly is it that makes openness worthy of a pedestal it’s often being put on? If we define openess as the least restrictions on access to a technology in the environment that the technology is developed and distributed in, than it is conducive to the broadest possible use, even alternative ones. As such there is additional value in openness. One can rail against the moralistic tone of the FSF, but their principles are consistent. Engaging in exclusive per person software contracts does force people to deny access to that software if others ask to be given access (read access as an individual copy). It isn't as bad as denying a starving man a slice of bread if you happen to have a loaf, but it is exclusionary and rude if one considers the minimal cost of software duplication. As far as I know, the FSF has never denied anyone the right to choose not to use FOSS. They just strongly advise against it, because you take on obligations that force you to be under the control of the rights holder of the software. Personally, I tend to choose FOSS over just User experience, quality, excellence, performance, advancement, providing true value because they tend to be meaningless once a piece of software becomes technically or legally unusable through planned obsolescence and EULA manoeuvring. But by going for FOSS, I do excercise recommendation number one: Freedom of choice. |
| Libervis Apr 08, 2011 11:01 AM EDT |
Taco (tbuitenh), by mentioning anarcho-capitalism you are tempting me to go into a spiral towards the famous "TOS violation" that made me stop participating in discussions on LXer (because it was commonly abused by some to shut up the opposing minority views here). In short though, if the condition of you getting a piece of code is to agree not to share it then sharing it afterwards is a violation of that agreement. It doesn't have to be a government that will enforce that (and ideally it shouldn't). The caveat I usually put to that is that an agrement such as this is valid only between the people in that agreement, not anyone else. Copyright assumes otherwise, so it goes and prosecutes "violators" that had nothing to do with the original agrement violation. My point in the article wasn't at all to say that openness doesn't create conditions for innovation, just that it isn't the only way to do that, and that it isn't a moral imperative either so it doesn't deserve the pedestal any more than say a particular mindset of the people who innovate (like entrepreneurial thinking of failure as just a milestone to success). Also, Hans, you're very right about that openness exists within "closed" companies as well. This actually was on my mind when I was drafting this article, but it apparently didn't make it in. There are two things to consider about that though. First, If there is a wall between the internal openness and the outside openness most people define this as "closed", and when taking the imperative of openness to heart they believe this leads to less innovation which Apple and others apparently prove to be wrong. Second, If we're gonna define openness in such a way for there to be nothing left "closed" then both concepts lose meaning, which certainly doesn't help the cause of openness as an imperative. It just shifts attention towards other factors. So instead of openness I shift my attention to needs and urges and whatever can induce them. How open or closed a structure may be can have an impact, and in some cases make or break the prospect for innovation, but I don't really think anymore that it is fundamentally necessary for innovation to occur if you've got the underlying driving forces behind innovation: needs and urges. |
| Libervis Apr 08, 2011 11:07 AM EDT |
r_a_trip, I think without copyright the most popular contracts would probably be something close to the GPL or BSD simply due to the nature of software and other information based "goods", and so long as it is people choosing freely that leads us to that situation then I'm all for it. It would simply mean that these kinds of contracts are a better offer than the EULA's you speak of, not necessarily that they are a more moral offer or that they are the only way to foster innovation. That's in a nutshell what I'm saying. I'm rallying against imperatives about openness, but I accept the possibility of it turning out to be optimal in many if not most cases. I just wont make the commitment to say anymore that it is absolutely necessary for innovation or moral satisfaction. |
| tbuitenh Apr 08, 2011 12:12 PM EDT |
TOS violation? I don't know what you're talking about, but if mentions of ideologies lead to threads being deleted or something, then let's not talk about those :) I wonder what happens when I acquire a piece of code that I cannot share, and despite my best efforts someone manages to copy it from me (and is then allowed to share it with anyone because copyrights do not exist). If this code is valuable, and there is a significant amount of closed source software on my computer, the probability of this happening approaches 1. I guess it would only be safe to install closed source software on systems that do not have any other closed source software on them! Innovation always requires some level of openness. If you can't reuse anything, you'll be wasting a lot of time rebuilding the wheel. Openness at the source code level does mean less rebuilding. In for-profit software development there should be just enough closedness to let innovators stay ahead of lazy copying competitors, I believe opening immediately after release is best but I'd like to see some scientific evidence. As for software development without a profit motive, closing the source does not make any sense at all. Morality... I know I'm not in much of a position to say something is moral or immoral, because in my (rational) opinion right and wrong are completely irrational (but valid) concepts. Libervisco, do you agree that it is wrong to ask someone to sign a blank check, especially when they don't understand what they're signing? (which is my main issue with closed source software) Or do you believe that anything one can get away with is by definition permissible? (which, sorry for mentioning it again, is my main issue with anarcho-capitalism). |
| Libervis Apr 08, 2011 3:14 PM EDT |
Political and religious discussions are against LXer TOS. It used to happen that whenever we discussed voluntaryism, ancap, abolishing copyright etc. the debate reached a point at which I (and Bob) felt like we're being hushed up by "TOS violation" claims. Instead of arguments we were getting pestered about violating the TOS. I'm not really interested in repeating history so I tend to stay out of it. I do still think this policy is pretty unreasonable considering that Free Software philosophy itself (deeply relevant to what LXer is about) is largely political in nature. It's next to impossible to separate it from larger political ideas. The irony in all this is that my ideas are actually staunchly apolitical. If someone copies software you agreed not to share, without your permission, then that person is liable. He or she is making the choice of violating your agreement for you. Innovation may require some level of openness, but if you'll define openness to include any and all instances of there being something to reuse or build upon then as I mentioned above "openness" loses its distinction as a concept. By "openness" I am referring to what is commonly meant by it (structures like the FOSS community for instance). I don't think it's wrong to ask someone to sign a blank check if he understands what a blank check implies. You'd be stupid to agree perhaps, but just making an offer is hardly a moral transgression. Think of the precedent we'd be setting if we established that it was. I don't believe anything one can get away with is permissible. You might get away with murder, theft, fraud, child abuse and other forms of using somebody's life and property against his will. I still wouldn't consider it permissible. It would also be extremely hard to get away with these things for long in a society that doesn't legitimize any forms of such crimes (like ours do). |
| flufferbeer Apr 08, 2011 10:46 PM EDT |
Back to subject: story type: "humor"? No. Probably less-humorous but very subtle FUD by someone who eagerly and selfishly wishes things would be much less "Open". The Emperor has no clothes! My 2c |
| hkwint Apr 09, 2011 6:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:First, If there is a wall between the internal openness and the outside openness most people define this as "closed" Sure, and that's why I don't believe in the binary "open" OR "closed". On the other 'forum' (actually it's more responding to / arguing news articles) I participate in, we had the discussion about WebM vs. h.264. Google wants to frame the debate as "WebM is open and h.264 is closed". So when discussing, one finds out this is totally nonsense: WebM is code-dumping (one of the aspects of a non-open format) just like OOXML, and the standard itself was not available in the beginning, just the implementation. Also, it was the result of the work of one for-profit company, and it was unclear how other people/companies could participate. h.264 is governed by the not for profit / NGO ISO (or the ISO-norm corresponding to the standard is), it was the result of negotiations between multiple companies who had a say in its direction, and one can receive the standard. So in some ways h.264 is more open than WebM. Nonetheless, the h.264 standard is not royalte-free, not 'gratis' to download (AFAIK), so on some 'items' it's more closed than WebM. One could do the same for Apple platforms, but instead many people feel more comfortable calling something "open", and if it's not "open" then they call it "closed". Of course, "openness" indeed isn't the only way to reach innovation. In fact, one may remember Mr. Wiles who "locked himself in" on a loft for seven years to 'secretly' prove a limited form of the modularity theorem - and therefore Fermat's last theorem, maybe the greatest mathematical innovation of our age. But without the work some others did (Ribet proving the first half) and made available in an 'open' way before, the proof of Fermat's theorem wouldn't have been complete. Both operating in an open or closed way have their merits when innovating, I think the "more closed approach" provides a better focus. It can clearly be seen when looking at Apple-products or Android, or the hundreds of Linux distributions versus the fifteen or so versions which Microsoft provides. |
| Libervis Apr 10, 2011 3:38 PM EDT |
That makes sense Hans. Flufferbeer, on what basis can you believe I selfishly and eagerly wish things to be much less open? Why would I want that? I'm tempted to tell you things about my life/work, but I deliberately wont seeing as you apparently claim to know me already. So go ahead, prove it. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 10, 2011 5:56 PM EDT |
Quoting: I do still think this policy is pretty unreasonable considering that Free Software philosophy itself (deeply relevant to what LXer is about) is largely political in nature. It's next to impossible to separate it from larger political ideas. I agree Libervis, the issue is that keeping threads on the subject of FOSS in regards to it's political and philosophical implications is next to impossible. It always ends up as a flame war over who is right and who is wrong all the while alienating and pigeonholing those who disagree and marginalizing those who choose to remain quiet. LXer is about inclusion, not exclusion. And Politics and Religion happen to be two very powerful ways in which we humans delineate ourselves from each other, until that changes our TOS will remain unchanged. I have started and article about FOSS and Politics but I have yet to finish it because no matter how hard I try I cannot seem to hide my own bias while trying to make my points. Until I can it will remain a work in progress. |
| jdixon Apr 10, 2011 6:54 PM EDT |
> ...because no matter how hard I try I cannot seem to hide my own bias while trying to make my points. Almost no one can Scott. My personal opinion is that it's therefore better to disclose your biases upfront and let the reader take them into account. However, LXer may not be the best place to do so. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 10, 2011 7:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:My personal opinion is that it's therefore better to disclose your biases upfront and let the reader take them into account. I could not agree more, the idea of unbiased reporting is a joke/lie/oxymoron to me. Telling me that your unbiased only says that your hiding something..for a reason..and as a consequence I cannot trust you. I have gotten into rather heated conversations about this on the SPJ website and others I have met that have had a 'traditional' education in Journalism. In my opinion it is more reputable to tell your readers up front what your biases are so that they can discern for themselves what they think of your reporting. Like I have said many times, I make no bones about what I like and do not like, what I stand for and what I do not. I am openly pro FOSS, that is my bias and the inherent slant anything I write for LXer will take. Saying that may make some readers disregard anything I say outright or may make them like my writing all the more. It is their right to decide for themselves, but making my biases known at least tells them that I am not trying to lie to them. Like me or not I'm just telling it like I see it. |
| Libervis Apr 11, 2011 10:44 AM EDT |
On the issue of biases, I agree. It's really about honesty, which is in a nutshell presenting yourself as who you are. I don't think the anti-politics policy is working though if the goal is inclusion. It simply institutionalizes the dominance of one particular kind of a political slant towards FOSS given the biases we just acknowledged, the one that FOSS, or FSF's philosophy specifically, is based on. If you talk from that point of view you'll appear easily on-topic despite the fact that if we take the TOS strictly, you are already in violation. If someone presents a view that stands out from what is typically tied to FOSS, then the political nature of what is said begins to be more noticeable. It doesn't help when dishonest people begin to use the TOS as a defense mechanism for their views ("you're in violation, I don't have to present any more arguments to you"). Usually, at that point, both parties are in violation, but only one will try to use that to their advantage. So IMHO it's pretty useless, at least as it stands now. |
| hkwint Apr 11, 2011 11:51 AM EDT |
Nonetheless, Daniel, I can remember great discussions we had on LXer - from which I learned a lot. Like how most freedoms "disadvantage other freedoms". |
| Libervis Apr 11, 2011 1:05 PM EDT |
Oh sure, not saying there weren't some great discussions. :) Trouble is, in the last 5 years I made a nearly 180 degree turn in my views so there's a kind of pre and post period for me. This particular view, that most freedoms disadvantage other freedoms, is no longer what I agree with because I came to understand most "freedoms" people talk about as actually just entitlements, which contributes to the confusion about what freedom is to begin with (and I think most of us might agree there are people who do very anti-freedom things in the name of freedom so the confusion isn't really serving us well). People are trying to paint their own individual aesthetic preferences with the connotations of the "freedom" concept to upgrade these preferences into "moral rights". This gives them a fake excuse to moralize against people who choose differently. Obviously, I think FSF is an example of this. Just taking a reductionist approach can make it easier to discern between fakes and the real deal. Everything is inevitably a sum of its parts, so it pays to look at the parts and how they relate to each other, in order to understand the whole. When you find inconsistencies among the parts with what the whole is claimed to be, you know you've got a fake. |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2011 8:28 AM EDT |
@all: I have avoided this discussion until now for three simple reasons: 1. Unlike y'all, I am completely without bias. 2. I know exactly what freedom is with regard to free software, and 3. y'alll are wrong, wrong, wrong. Hope that clears matters up for you. |
| Fettoosh Apr 13, 2011 8:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:Hope that clears matters up for you. I would believe it when you prove every one of them. :-) |
| Jose_X Apr 13, 2011 6:01 PM EDT |
I suppose Apple has the freedom to leverage the US military to deny people the freedom to create their own software sharing basic ideas similar to ideas Apple has patented and to deny users the ability to leverage software created under the Apple corporate umbrella thanks to much help Apple got from taking software information produced by others in the community. Apple has that right within their "proprietary software" business as has every other software firm since copyright law and software have existed. The FSF has helped many developers and users legally and efficiently collaborate without having firms like Apple so easily take that information and then use guns to keep us from prodding the software they write that leveraged that information. Danijel, could you slant your next freedom article not in favor of Apple and other proprietary firms? |
| skelband Apr 14, 2011 1:19 PM EDT |
The ghist of the start of the article seems to be discussing the tension between the freedoms of the end-user to do with the software as they like and the freedoms of the writer to impose what restrictions they would like. In some ways this is like the general criminal law. In essence, the ideal (other than some exceptions necessary for the running of government itself) situation is that anyone can do anything they like as long as their exercising of that right does not impinge on another's freedom to do what they want. That is where the boundary of fair freedom is defined. I also think this is a good test of whether a law is good or not and from that we can determine that many of the UK's most recent laws are unfair and unjust in this sense. What I think is certainly clear is that open software (open as it you can give it to your friends, see the source, modify it and pass on the modifications) is better for a modern society and is inextricable linked to issues of standards and standards conformance. I don't see how the case has been made that a closed software environment gives any benefit to society whatsoever. One might also say that open government is always preferable to a closed, cloistered government. At the end of the day, control is what it is all about and in a supposedly democratic society we see control being wrested away from the populous and into the large corporations, aided and abetted by their legislative friends. |
| Libervis Apr 15, 2011 6:35 PM EDT |
Jose_X, honestly, what are you smoking? You wrote 10 long comments on that article that started as semi-decent criticism and ended up with this ridiculous claim that I support Apple using the US Military (wtf?) to deny sharing or creating their own software (wtf again). I think I made it clear what I support or not support. I don't support denying people the choice to do anything. I simply recognize that once someone makes a particular choice, even when it is a choice of restrictions, it is a valid one. If you chose restrictions, you're bound to them. If you don't like them, stop using it, and choose differently. I also agreed from the get go (as soon as it was mentioned by other commenters) that corporations use government power to create certain market conditions that wouldn't arise naturally, and that I don't support this. But as far as the simple concept of creating software and offering it under terms not fitting the FSF's definition of acceptable, I don't find that to be "immoral", and I think people should have the right to make that choice. That's all I'm saying. I don't know if it was worth even replying to such a perversion of what I was saying, but here goes. |
| Libervis Apr 15, 2011 6:45 PM EDT |
Skelband, I'll take your word for it about the way criminal law is determined, but as far as the general principle of.. "anyone can do anything they like as long as their exercising of that right does not impinge on another's freedom to do what they want" ..or what I often abbreviated as "whatever floats your boat so long as it doesn't sink mine", this was the way I thought of freedom pretty much since I started thinking about it at all. It is taking that principle to its ultimate and logical conclusion that led me to see government itself as violating the principle. Open government is better than a closed one because it is a government (AKA violence legalized), so it's damn important you have a say in how you're being stolen from and coerced, but obviously it's just a lesser evil. When you remove that element of violence, which leaves us with something we call an enterprise, or a business, closed vs. open matters far less if the end result is serving the needs of customers in the market, and innovating, while not violating anyone's basic freedom to make own choices. I now humbly wait for a siren followed by a "you are in a TOS violation, you said too much" warning. ;) |
| Jose_X Apr 15, 2011 8:38 PM EDT |
Libervis,
What toubles me is for someone to argue against a group that releases almost all rights available under existing copyright law, quite unlike what firms like Apple do as a matter of course. You write a full article critical of the FSF in a light that places them perhaps below but at best only slightly better than a firm like Apple (Microsoft and others). The FSF doesn't just release almost all rights but goes further to pressure for copyright law to be neutered by saying that if you try to deny others the right to share -- in other words, if you insist on enforcing existing copyright laws on others after leveraging the FSF's contributions -- then, and in consideration that you are taking from the public and then exploiting such laws against the public, the FSF plays your game and similarly denies you access by the same law. To put Apple on par with the FSF or in a better light is to say that Apple can use copyright law to restrict and restrict and try to have you thrown in jail (did you read about the iphone4 incident among others?), or worse if you decide to resist. Meanwhile, the FSF's entirely public contributions with the one significant reserved defensive tit-for-tat lever is what we should really be worried about! Don't worry about Apple or about the decency of what they exploit daily, but let's really worry about those contributing voluntarily because they are willing to use the law defensively against those exploiting that generosity! I know you have a libertarian angle (I'm not libertarian but do appreciate many of the views), and it would be nice if you used it with balance next time. |
| Jose_X Apr 15, 2011 9:03 PM EDT |
>> When you remove that element of violence, which leaves us with something we call an enterprise, or a business, closed vs. open matters far less if the end result is serving the needs of customers in the market, and innovating, while not violating anyone's basic freedom to make own choices. So if there is a hypothetical law that says those who sneeze near a store can be placed in jail for defamation and destruction of business property, you think that is no violence? What about all businesses who leverage laws that many might consider unjust and which can be enforced by federal marshals? What about my freedom to leverage information I come across? How can you say you don't support copyright law yet call harmless those who leverage it daily as a matter of "business"? And worse when they use patents (monopolies on ideas). Without quality key open source infrastructure and applications (largely under the hood), Apple would not be around today making waves. Go ahead and downplay the value of public information and know-how and those who support it and keep supporting those who use such public information yet keep many secrets for the sake of their holy enterprise and profit.. and who will use any legal lever to maximize their profit even when it means significant restrictions on others. Apple in a cave would be nothing. Jobs himself has been quoted as referring to himself essentially as a top rank thief of ideas. You can't create "magic" in a cave. So when you support these proprietary firms, understand that you are supporting copycats (we are all 99% copycats .. that's how we escaped the dinosaurs) who then turn around and use as draconian a law as they can find to deny others a fair shot at enterprise. It's always easy to look good when you have lots of money and vanity and society (including competitors you'll never hear about) happens to be active doing the majority of the work. Stand on our shoulders as we swim so you can be the first to jump onto land. The GPL is toothless unless you are (a) leveraging those works and (b) then in a somewhat flagrant manner leveraging copyright law, trade secrets, and/or patents to deny others. [There are numerous ways to leverage these 3 things across your enterprise and also GPL software, so the GPL restrictions are rather limited to certain major and mainly tit-for-tat scenarios.] |
| Libervis Apr 15, 2011 9:50 PM EDT |
Jose, are you talking to me or some kind of a weird manifestation of me? How many times do I have to reiterate that I do not support those laws nor corporations using those laws to their advantage? I couldn't care less about laws personally. They're all nothing but not-so-veiled threats that people delude themselves to believe are necessary. What I am saying has nothing to do with those laws whatsoever. I can support one thing Apple does without supporting the other. I support their right to release software under the terms which deny sharing, source code and other stuff while NOT supporting their use of laws to make those terms apply to people who haven't even gotten a chance to agree, or prosecute people over patents etc. Just the same I can support some things FSF does (in so far as they somewhat ease the consequences of draconian "intellectual property" laws) while not supporting their moral philosophy. What's so difficult to understand about this? I think the only reason you seem to see me as some kind of an enemy to FSF or perhaps yourself is because you cannot stand someone deciding to have a word of criticism for some of what FSF stands for. It's enough for me to criticize anything about it and you'll act as if I'm their enemy number one, and wish to wipe them off the face of the Earth. Step back a little, take a deep breath, and try to take a balanced look at what I'm saying. You might find that I'm not trying to eradicate everything FSF does and stands for, and that all I really want is for the validity of all choices to be recognized. Where FSF moralizing denies this choice I will harshly criticize that. Where Apple, MS and others use law to deny other choices, I will criticize that just as harshly. So if the only way to make you feel better is to just go back to being a 100% FSF follower like I was, I'm sorry to disappoint. That's just not gonna happen. But please stop with all this "what about the laws they use" BS. I AGREE with you on that man. That sucks, and it sucks just as much as FSF's moralizing, if not more, but that wasn't the topic of my article, and it was pretty long as it is. The point was that regardless of whether laws exist or not, and regardless of whether corporations (ab)use them or not, the set of terms under which software is provided IS a matter of free choice, with each choice being as valid as the next. The reason why this targeted FSF is because FSF is pretty particular about calling some types of terms immoral, and therefore subject to be denied. Steve Jobs never said "GPL should be illegal". I don't even recall Steve Ballmer saying it even though he considered it a cancer. I did hear Richard Stallman, on many occasions, say that "proprietary software should be illegal". I say I don't agree, and for a movement trying to change things for the better, this is an extremely dangerous meme to propagate, and there's already enough of those around. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!