Re: Nomination question: Redhat
On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 10:54:38AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised at this RH bashing over something that we should be
> agreeing with.
Please note I was stating other's views. I haven't made up my mind on
this and not being closer to Redhat I am not sure I am qualified to make
up my mind on that regard.
> The move to LGPL increases the freedom of software because it allows
> non-GPL software (which is still free under another license) to
> "incorporate" such libraries without incorporating the GPL as the license.
But the LGPL doesn't protect the code from being used by non-free
software. There really isn't a license that is popular and well-known to
be a bridge allowing use in free software but not in non-free software.
I can understand the concern, though I personally tend to believe that
commercial and even non-free apps for GNU/Linux are not necessarily a bad
thing. Clearly a lot of people disagree with me on this point. =>
I'm not sure they should go removing libs that happen to be GPL because
they don't like GPL used on libs, but I suppose if it's their dist, they
are free to do this if they want. How the community responds to them
doing it is another matter all together.
> The other side of this bashing attitude seems to imply that a system that
> makes it easier to run "proprietary" software is inately evil. I disagree
> strongly with this position. One of the things that attracts me to Linux
> over M$ is the difference in their attitude to each other. Linux works
> hard to incorporate those features needed to execute and access
> proprietary systems. From file system support to programs like wine and
> dosemu, Linux works to give the user the greatest flexibility in a system.
> M$, on the other hand adds features to their software (the 64K ping comes
> to mind) that not only make it incompatible with non-M$ software, are even
> distructive to the rest of the participants.
While I must agree that such systems aren't evil as you say, others tend
to believe that proprietary software companies don't want to stop M$,
they want to REPLACE M$--that is not to stop the oppression but rather to
become the oppressors. Whether this applies to any of the corporations
or not currently trying to move into the GNU/Linux world is an exercise
for the reader be they paranoid enough to feel it necessary.
I was attracted more by the fact that the base system was and would
always be free to be honest. It's one thing to buy a CD and know that
you're paying for the CD, not a license to use the contents. It's
another to know that paying for the CD is optional really and that if
someone installs the OS on your new machine "free", they really mean it
and the cost doesn't actually reflect a price and agree-by-buying-this
shrinkwrap license.
I've remained because I kinda like the whole power trip I get knowing
that I can do things some of my friends don't even realize CAN BE DONE.
This is how I artificially inflate my ego in a safe and sane manner. =>
> It's time for us to stop propogating the idea that this is a battle
> between the prorietary and the free software models. The free software
> model can "defeat" the proprietary model by being more accomodating than
> the proprietary code, by producing "better" software. Attacks on the
> sofware or it's model are non-productive.
Isn't it good to at least know the arguments of others who disagree?
> On a final note, look closely at our social contract. It specifically
> makes the point that part of our job is to support our user's needs for
> non-free software by providing an adequate platform for this software.
It does not say when an upstream author opts to use the GPL for a library
that we will reject the library even though it's free software because it
can't be used for proprietary code. Redhat is not obligated to include
or not any particular software just as we are not, however I think I
might be annoyed
> Debian is never going to "go commercial" if it doesn't easily integrate
> proprietary code packages. The Linux Standard Base committee is working on
> those basic principles, to which Debian gave its resounding support.
>
> Technical compatibility will allow free software to "absorb" and possibly
> even convert such proprietary software to the free software development
> model. (Netscape is one example)
>
> As I have stated many times, commercial desires are not necessarily evil.
> If you can't sell free software, it isn't free of distribution
> restrictions.
I don't think any of this is in dispute.
--
"Shall we play a game?" -- WOPR
Reply to: