Re: [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society or germ of a new form of business?
- From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:34:56 -0800
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:43:38AM -0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
If one continues to think that GPLed software is free software
despite it being so obviously not so then I can only conclude that
either that person is deluded or a zealot.
I disagree with you Niall but I don't think you are deluded or a
zealot -- and I probably wouldn't call you one even if I did. Consider
for a moment that maybe folks aren't as confused and uncritical
as you think because your conclusions are *not* as obvious as you
imply.
I hardly trivialise their position and especially not influence.
If saying that anyone who holds an idea is either deluded or a zealot
is not trivializing a position, I'm not sure what is. You are not
trivializing the effect of the position but you aren't willing to
admit that a sane, critical, non-deluded person could hold it.
As you know, I fear the consequences of the GPL which are extremely
bad for creating and maintaining innovation. It must not be allowed
to become the de facto software license.
You probably already know this Niall but the GPL already is the de
facto Free Software license. Believe it or not, this isn't just
because FOSS developers are deluded and joined the cult of
RMS. Developers think hard about the effects of their licenses and
make a decision about what they think are best and many choose the
GPL: smart critical developers even.
I know that saying what I'm about to say will not be popular, but to
be quite frank, Debian is quite unimportant in the bigger
picture.
I don't use Debian as an example because I think it is super
important. I use it because I am a Debian developer and its where my
experience is.
That said, Debian *is* by many measures the largest volunteer Free
Software project anywhere and I think that's worth something. It's
also representative of other FOSS projects and the FOSS community more
generally in may respects.
As I have said many times, the true engineer chooses the best tools
available. Not for political, legal nor philosophical grounds nor
even cost within reason. If one doesn't do that, one must accept
they are a substandard programmer & engineer and must especially
accept that one has absolutely no right whatsoever to preach their
superiority to others who are less self-castrated.
So let me get this straight: Anyone who doesn't fully agree with your
method of evaluating software is a bad programmer, a shoddy engineer,
and self-castrated? This sounds more like noise and trolling than
anything else -- which is too bad because you have some good
points. Please don't degenerate into this.
As I have mentioned before, all evidence shows that far more
commercial cash is poured into BSD/MIT software development than GPL
As I've said before, maximizing the influx of commercial cash was
never the point of GPL. You think that's its fatal flaw, and I think
it was an example of priorities in a sane place. You won't use the GPL
for your software. I will. Go ahead and think I'm a substandard
programmer. Lets move on.
business knows that permanently locking yourself out of commercial
use is stupid - you are cutting off your hands to spite your face.
The GPL does not affect commercial use. I am currently consulting for
a company whose core business is developing and expanding upon GPL
software.
If Windows didn't cost anything at all, I bet there'd be far fewer
Linux boxes around.
That's clearly the case. But other things (TCO, upgrade paths,
security, accountability, dependence, etc.) also play a role. What's
your point here?
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako debian.org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/