Re: [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society or germ of a new form of business?
- From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per leftist.net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:23:19 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Niall Douglas wrote:
If you remember threads involving me on fsfeurope.org discussion, I
have stated many times that I do not view the GPL as a free software
license.
Then you have a private definition of 'free software', which, like all
other private definitions, is something that is not very interesting to
discuss for other people.
If one continues to think that GPLed software is free software
despite it being so obviously not
It is obviously not 'obvious' when so many (rather: most people) involved
in the free software scene disagree with you.
I hardly trivialise their position and especially not influence.
You realize that this directly contradicts your argument about
obviousness above?
As I have said many times, the true engineer chooses the best tools
available.
I never saw an ad for hiring a 'true engineer'. Licensing is part of the
world engineers live in, and refusing to deal with it is simply not a good
idea.
Not for political, legal nor philosophical grounds
If you want to exclude political and philosophical grounds from the
debate, then why are you on this list in the first place?
commercial interests are simply not interested in sinking a lot of cash
into GPL development.
To the contrary, the GPL is good for companies that want to contribute,
since the GPL protects them from competitors that may use it to gain a leg
up on the contributor. Troll Tech and ID Software are examples of
companies that do this.
As I have mentioned before, all evidence shows that far more commercial
cash is poured into BSD/MIT software development than GPL
The free software community and the bulk of free software was not built by
commercial cash. What evidence, by the way?
- Per
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/