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

Paul Boudreau pbx at eastlink.ca
Thu Mar 4 23:32:07 AST 2004

Jeff Warnica wrote:

>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.
>nSLUG mailing list
>nSLUG at nslug.ns.ca
I agree with you, nobody should be forced to share, but if
you don't, that makes you selfish and nobody will like you
(didn't your parents teach you this).
And, didn't mean to restrict your freedoms by saying my
preference is not to dual boot, but it's my opinion that way
too much time is spent on Wine and Crossover and Win4Lin
and their "ilk" that if that effort had gone into making Linux
versions of the same software we would all be better served.
I think that everyone is in favour of freedom, it's just that
some people have no idea what it is.

More information about the nSLUG mailing list