Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on September 26, 2006 06:19 PM
For someone who claims to hate politics, Linus Torvalds sure is doing his fair share of stumping for his side of the aisle. I guess it's just one of the duties of being the poster-boy for corporate predators. Corporations by their very nature are unethical sociopaths who believe that deceptive tactics, lying, stealing, and cheating are all fair game, just don't get caught. Of course Linus was the obvious choice for poster-boy because he, at least where software is concerned, claims to hold to those same sociopathic views.
The advent of Open Source was the product and outcome of taking the Free Software model, then stripping away all ethical considerations. It's all about excellent, efficient code.
The Free Software model from it's outset, and without apologies, started as an ethical view. The innovative GNU GPL was devised as a means to implement those views in practical terms. Mr Stallman, with the help of other of his like minded contemporaries, reduced onto paper what those ethical views were. The four core freedoms of free software.
Mr Stallman, by his character , voice, and actions, has made it clear all along, that he would diligently, and to the best of his ability. Protect and defend the four freedoms that constitute Free Software. Something that his steadfast, and long suffering refusal to bend, or yield to corporate pressure all these many years. Has proved himself worthy of the task.
The GNU GPLv3 is simply a continuation of this process. Tivoization brought to light a bug in the license that allowed an effective circumvention of one of those freedoms by technical means. Software Patents open the door for owners of large patent portfolios to hijack ownership, in practical terms, of whole subsections of code, while technically being in compliance with the license. In reality though, the code they dutifully share to comply with the license in these situations, is code that only they can legally use. When you further factor in the cross licensing practices of large patent portfolio owners, the likely outcome (long term) is a corporatization of community code. Nullifying it's very intent.
For Mr. Stallman to not make changes in the GNU GPL to address these situations would be a breach of trust on his part. The GNU GPLv3 adds nothing new, it's simply a continuation of Mr. Stallman keeping his word.
This whole GPLv3 debate is bringing to the surface a locking horns of two bodies of opinion that have, what are irreconcilable differences. Which side are you?
When Thomas J. Watson Sr, the founder of IBM was sitting across the table from Adolf Hitler, discussing the terms of the Lease and monthly Service contract for IBM's punch card computers. The computers that were used to EFFICIENTLY exterminate six million (plus) human beings . Do you think that he was in any way concerned about the ethical considerations of the ultimate use of his computers? Not at all. He represented the corporation he founded IBM, a sociopathic entity. The fact that his computers were to be used for evil purposes had nothing to do with the quality of his computers, or their operating system. He was just interested in providing Adolf Hitler with high quality at a completive price.
"WHICH CAMP DO YOU THINK Mr. WATSON WOULD BE IN? FREE SOFTWARE OR OPEN SOURCE?" The answer is obvious. He would without question cast his lot will with his fellow sociopaths in the Open Source camp .
No decent human being can totally divorce him/herself from the ethical or political considerations of their actions. Though sadly, some people such as Linus Torvalds try.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Open Source vs Free Software
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 26, 2006 06:19 PMThe advent of Open Source was the product and outcome of taking the Free Software model, then stripping away all ethical considerations. It's all about excellent, efficient code.
The Free Software model from it's outset, and without apologies, started as an ethical view. The innovative GNU GPL was devised as a means to implement those views in practical terms. Mr Stallman, with the help of other of his like minded contemporaries, reduced onto paper what those ethical views were. The four core freedoms of free software.
Mr Stallman, by his character , voice, and actions, has made it clear all along, that he would diligently, and to the best of his ability. Protect and defend the four freedoms that constitute Free Software. Something that his steadfast, and long suffering refusal to bend, or yield to corporate pressure all these many years. Has proved himself worthy of the task.
The GNU GPLv3 is simply a continuation of this process.
Tivoization brought to light a bug in the license that allowed an effective circumvention of one of those freedoms by technical means.
Software Patents open the door for owners of large patent portfolios to hijack ownership, in practical terms, of whole subsections of code, while technically being in compliance with the license. In reality though, the code they dutifully share to comply with the license in these situations, is code that only they can legally use. When you further factor in the cross licensing practices of large patent portfolio owners, the likely outcome (long term) is a corporatization of community code. Nullifying it's very intent.
For Mr. Stallman to not make changes in the GNU GPL to address these situations would be a breach of trust on his part. The GNU GPLv3 adds nothing new, it's simply a continuation of Mr. Stallman keeping his word.
This whole GPLv3 debate is bringing to the surface a locking horns of two bodies of opinion that have, what are irreconcilable differences. Which side are you?
When Thomas J. Watson Sr, the founder of IBM was sitting across the table from Adolf Hitler, discussing the terms of the Lease and monthly Service contract for IBM's punch card computers. The computers that were used to EFFICIENTLY exterminate six million (plus) human beings . Do you think that he was in any way concerned about the ethical considerations of the ultimate use of his computers? Not at all. He represented the corporation he founded IBM, a sociopathic entity. The fact that his computers were to be used for evil purposes had nothing to do with the quality of his computers, or their operating system. He was just interested in providing Adolf Hitler with high quality at a completive price.
"WHICH CAMP DO YOU THINK Mr. WATSON WOULD BE IN? FREE SOFTWARE OR OPEN SOURCE?" The answer is obvious. He would without question cast his lot will with his fellow sociopaths in the Open Source camp .
No decent human being can totally divorce him/herself from the ethical or political considerations of their actions. Though sadly, some people such as Linus Torvalds try.
#