The GNU General Public License encumbers Open Source Software with a schizoid and sociopathic personality disorder that renders it unable to work well with others, while blaming every other software producer for its failures. This is actually a side effect of a self-preservationist mentality that is a requirement for a business like Microsoft and other proprietary software vendors, but is unncessary baggage for a movement that should be aiming to provide users with a less hostile computing experience. The GPL was created to protect the software freedom of users by ensuring that the source code was always available and freely distributable, however it does little to protect the freedom of software users who care nothing about the availablity of the source code and more about usable software. Instead, it actually hinders the freedom of those users by forcing them to endure less than usable software for the sake of adhering to Richard Stallman's constant redefinition of freedom, which is forced cooperation rather than true freedom defended by its beneficiaries. As a result of these personality flaws, most open source software remains less than usable, garnering only the support of companies seeking self-preservation, when it should be willing and able to cooperate with the companies that are actually able to benefit projects with user interface research, as well as software and hardware support that is not constantly having to be reverse-engineered.
Who would benefit from a less socially bankrupt license? You. If you're a developer, you can stop chasing after less than open, yet de facto standards and cooperatate with software vendors that may not agree with your development strategy to create software that makes your software usable, predictable, reliable and interoperable for the people who really matter --- your users, who are your customers. You may sacrifice getting credit for your work as it is used in proprietary software, but if your goal is an ego stroke, your customers will suffer. If' you're a user, you will be able know that just because you switch to an open source platform, doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice your usablity on the RMS altar. If you're a computer manufacturer, you will know that you can sell a package with your computer that includes a mixture of open source and proprietary software -- depending on what works best for your customers, instead of having to compromise their experience for the sake of an anti-social political movement. And, if you're a GPL zealot, you can still install just open source software at all cost -- even if it causes you to be less productive and unable to work with others who don't share your beliefs.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
GPL Issues
Posted by: Nathan on January 05, 2004 11:31 PMThe GNU General Public License encumbers Open Source Software with a schizoid and sociopathic personality disorder that renders it unable to work well with others, while blaming every other software producer for its failures. This is actually a side effect of a self-preservationist mentality that is a requirement for a business like Microsoft and other proprietary software vendors, but is unncessary baggage for a movement that should be aiming to provide users with a less hostile computing experience. The GPL was created to protect the software freedom of users by ensuring that the source code was always available and freely distributable, however it does little to protect the freedom of software users who care nothing about the availablity of the source code and more about usable software. Instead, it actually hinders the freedom of those users by forcing them to endure less than usable software for the sake of adhering to Richard Stallman's constant redefinition of freedom, which is forced cooperation rather than true freedom defended by its beneficiaries. As a result of these personality flaws, most open source software remains less than usable, garnering only the support of companies seeking self-preservation, when it should be willing and able to cooperate with the companies that are actually able to benefit projects with user interface research, as well as software and hardware support that is not constantly having to be reverse-engineered.
Who would benefit from a less socially bankrupt license? You. If you're a developer, you can stop chasing after less than open, yet de facto standards and cooperatate with software vendors that may not agree with your development strategy to create software that makes your software usable, predictable, reliable and interoperable for the people who really matter --- your users, who are your customers. You may sacrifice getting credit for your work as it is used in proprietary software, but if your goal is an ego stroke, your customers will suffer. If' you're a user, you will be able know that just because you switch to an open source platform, doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice your usablity on the RMS altar. If you're a computer manufacturer, you will know that you can sell a package with your computer that includes a mixture of open source and proprietary software -- depending on what works best for your customers, instead of having to compromise their experience for the sake of an anti-social political movement. And, if you're a GPL zealot, you can still install just open source software at all cost -- even if it causes you to be less productive and unable to work with others who don't share your beliefs.
#