[nSLUG] On topic of favorite distros, and Linux on the Desktop

Jeff Warnica jeffw at chebucto.ns.ca
Thu Mar 4 22:57:44 AST 2004

Stallman's view is not that you should have the right to share, but that
you should be obligated to do so. If his goal was to re-implement UNIX
with completely license unencumbered code, he could have done so by
putting the work in the public domain. The GPL is viral in nature not by
accident, but by specific design. RMS, and GNUs goal is neither
financial, nor technology but political.

MSFT is a for profit company. It is in the very definition of what they
are that they are supposed to make money. Directors of a publicly traded
company are legally obligated to do whatever will make their
shareholders the most money. Now, it may be true that MSFT, directly
through their marketing department, and indirectly through SCO, is
attacking the legality of "free software" itself. That does not
necessarily mean that it either what Microsoft thinks, or even what
Gates' thinks, but what they think is best for MSFT in terms of
profitability. Using the same logic that their is likely a group of US
military thinkers planning a global defense against an attack of
radioactive hamsters[1], their is also like a group of people inside
MSFT (who "get it") trying to figure out how they can make money with
this "free software" thing. If at some point, someone they figures out
how to make (more) money by releasing everything under a OSI Certified,
or even a GPL compatable, license, I'm sure they will do so. MSFT has
the most to loose, and they may never figure out how to make free
software work for them. But I am not going to deny them the right to
license their code as they see fit. I'm not going to attack copyright
law - the very law that allows the GPL to work.

Again, if RMS/GNUs point was to get rid of licenses, to get rid of
copyright, they they would put GNU stuff in the public domain.

You talk about freedom, but you also say that you don't want to get
things working with Windows. Writing cross platform code is not
impossible (and being a non-cross platform code writer I submit that the
practice itself results in superior code). What about xBSD? Why are you
denying someone the freedom to choose their OS? Windows shouldn't be
used for technological reasons, but I'm not going deny someone their
right to run an OS of their choice based on politics alone.

[1] from a planet near mars

On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 18:18, Paul Boudreau wrote:
> You think he's wrong. I think he's right. That's freedom.
> There are two points of view, Stallman's and Gates'.
> Stallman thinks people should have the right to share,
> distribute and modify software. Gates thinks you shouldn't.
> Some people think "Open Source" was a good compromise,
> so did Bill, now you can get M$ Open Source software.
> At some point in the future, the GPL will get a thorough
> testing in the courts and we will see the outcome.
> Personally, I don't even like to hear about people dual-
> booting with Windows, doesn't interest me in the least.
> What interests me is making "everything" work in GNU/Linux. He who risks 
> nothing, does nothing and
> becomes nothing.

More information about the nSLUG mailing list