use your brain and inform yourself befor you start judging other and calling them "xxx-nazis".
this is unbelievable!
Remember what Libre-Software is all about? Not making life easier for closed source developers, who want to use this easy library/tool just so that they don't have to pay for it.
Here, enlighten yourself, and see what it says:
There is not a single word about freedoms or benefits for developers. When the original author writes code and places it under the GPL, his/her intent is that the code will forever retain the freedoms for users to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the code.“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
Commercial developers are most decidedly not welcome.
However, this does not mean that GPL code has no commercial utility. It just means that one cannot use the code as a closed secret meant to provide a commercial advantage over another party. This does not, however, prevent open collaboration amongst companies whose product is not software.
As long as the code stays open, under the GPL, and any manufacturer at all can use it, then these companies, whose products for sale are not the code itself, can save enormous costs by collaborating on software development and sharing the costs.The Linux Foundation sees it differently and wants our cars to embrace the same notions of common roots and open code that we'd find in an Ubuntu box. Its newly-formed Automotive Grade Linux Workgroup is transforming Tizen into a reference platform that car designers can use for the center stack, or even the instrument cluster. The promise is to both optimize a Linux variant for cars and provide the same kind of years-long support that we'd expect for the drivetrain. Technology heavy-hitters like Intel, Harman, NVIDIA, Samsung and TI form the core of the group, although there are already automakers who've signaled their intentions: Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Toyota are all part of the initial membership.
That is the idea ... keep the code open, collaborate to share the costs, produce quality open code at the lowest cost possible, and everybody benefits (not just developers).
This economic relationship, which involves co-operation and collaboration to reduce costs, is called a consumer's co-operative, by the way.
Consumer cooperatives are enterprises owned by consumers and managed democratically which aim at fulfilling the needs and aspirations of their members. They operate within the market system, independently of the state, as a form of mutual aid, oriented toward service rather than pecuniary profit.
Last edited by hal2k1; 01-25-2013 at 03:47 AM.
Libre-Software is not a war against removing closed source alternatives. If it's a war, it's for providing open source alternatives.
Devs of closed source front-end will not open their code for the sake of using a GPL library, and FOSS gains nothing. If they use a LGPL library, they will contribute back to it. Which is arguably better, when the Libre-Software product is not the front-end, but that damn library.
Protecting against tivoisation and patents is important, even Linus knows that, and he would gladly port Linux to GPL3 if not for those few tens of thousands of people he'd have to contact about the matter first.
Besides, the readline library is GPL, not LGPL for the exact same reason: because there are no proprietary libraries that do the same, so that truly Free software could benefit from the advantage given by ability to use those libraries. It's all in the FSF FAQ, ffs!
BSDs Wastes Away Their SHITTY LITTLE LIVES
FOSS is open software developed by and for its own community of users. That community can, and does, include commercial companies (typically companies that do not sell closed source code as their product). Closed developers can go **** themselves.
I'll admit to this point of what may be unforgivable: in my day job I write closed source code. I also use open-source libraries (LGPL/BSD) with that code. I also write my own open source programs (BSD-licensed).
It seems that a lot of people are putting words in the mouths of proprietary developers and open source developers. If I comply with the terms of the licenses (I do), I don't see what the problem is. My company won't allow me to open source our code (we have nothing to gain by doing so), but my boss was happy to employ (part-time) our placement student through his final year to develop an extension to one of the LGPL libraries that we use.
The way I see it, everybody wins in this situation: my company saves money, we financially support a student when money is likely to be tight (and hold a job open for him when he's done) and the LGPL library gets expanded. I don't see how anything we're doing is bad.
Last edited by archibald; 01-25-2013 at 05:45 AM. Reason: changed 'in that code' to 'with that code' to make my meaning clearer