GPL, FSF, RMS and philosophy (was: Re: The Linux C library

GPL, FSF, RMS and philosophy (was: Re: The Linux C library

Post by Jack Walk » Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:00:00





><Marvelous article that needs to be widely read.>
>Amen!  Well said!  I wonder if RMS realizes that many (most?)
>of his fellows in the free software world are actually
>_opposed_ to his goal of eliminating commercial software?

I don't think RMS or any other FSF member is against commercial
software or making a profit.  I do think they are against software
hoarding through software patents and claims of ownership on look and
feel, however.  Where would the unix community be if the guy who
invented the commandline interface decided to enforce his
look-and-feel patent ;)

Quote:>Hm.  Let's say I were to create a handy piece of software

Considering your opinions this is a rather big stretch of the
imagination don't you think? ;^)

Quote:> which
>I wanted to put in the public domain.

Why bother with any licence if you're going to put it in the public
domain?  If however you want to make certain the current and all
future versions are freely available use the GPL or LGPL.  That is
what they are for.

Quote:>  I don't think I would
>want to use the GPL because it is confusing, connected with RMS
>ideology, and too restrictive.  What should I use?  Perl's
>Artistic License?

I wouldn't want to use Perl's artistic licence since it is associated
with Larry Wall.  He must a have warped ideology -- just look at the
abomination of a language he created ;)
>Regards,
>Zooko
>Definitely not speaking for DigiCash
>signatures follow

>                                      +       island Life in a chaos sea
>Not speaking for DigiCash or          /.



 
 
 

GPL, FSF, RMS and philosophy (was: Re: The Linux C library

Post by Jack Walk » Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:00:00





>>Hoo boy.  I know I'm going to regret this, but...
>Yep, expecially when your facts aren't straight. :(
>>few posts ago.  Like it or not, RMS, the FSF, and the GPL _pioneered_
>>free (not public domain) software.

Sounds like your facts aren't straight.  GPL and BSD are not public
domain.  GPL (haven't read the BSD license) is a license designed to
assure the continued free dstribution status of the software (with
source) it is applied to.  I could legally take a PD product adapt it
in some meaningless way (e.g., port it to Windoes'nt (c)) and license
that as my own product.
>Actually, no.  PD software existed *long* before the GPL became in
>fashion.  The BSD code-base was 'essentially' free-ware, and Sun built it's
>dy* on it.  (Which made RMS mad, because their fixes/innovations to the
>code-base weren't made public, but that's another issue altogether.)
>My definition of free is that I can use the code, and *many* licensing
>schemes support this to one degree or the other.  (And, no I'm not going
>to get into arguements about free vs. non-free vs. pseudo-free.)  
>>been.  To many people not "in the know", the FSF _is_ free software,
>The FSF is GPL software, which isn't the only type of free software.
>The original 'Usenet' had very little 'GPL' software, but it had a lot
>of freeware that people used.  Bnews, Cnews, rn, perl, patch, plus tons
>of other software were (and still are in some camps) widely used, where
>things such as GCC didn't exist.  (Back them vendors bundled their
>compilers with the OS, so having gcc was much less of an issue.)
>Stating that RMS and the FSF somehow were the pioneers/originators of
>free software is doing a dis-service to all those folks who released
>'free' code on the net.
>Check out all of the old comp.sources archives for *TONS* of 'free' (not
>GPL-free) software that pre-dates the GPL as we know it.
>Nate
>--

>work #: (406) 457-9000 |

>home #: (406) 443-7063 |                                - John Polstra