Ok, here is what I think: Freedom is a strong and controvertial concept; obviously my 'ideals' of freedom will not be exactly the same as yours, or GNU's... I find it offensive that somebody arbitrarily tries to force a definition of freedom, be it the GNU or the BSD's. Personally I find the BSD's more close to what I think freedom should be, but I don't think I can force this to others.
So maybe we can agree that freedom should have limits (others might not agree). So why GNU's limits are PRECISELY those that freedom should impose? Sorry, I don't buy it...
Linus himself contributes a large amount of success of Linux to the GPL, and I think it's just(and I'm not even an RMSbot)
Last edited by peppercats; 06-04-2013 at 01:39 AM.
(Some of) the BSD developers say that if one really respects freedom, one respects the freedom of others to do as they will. I don't say that I agree with them, but I don't say I agree with you either.
For your information, any parasite or predator that primarily attacks a pest is considered beneficial, and anything that attacks a beneficial species is considered a pest (as per my course in Economic Entomology). In agriculture, this usually means that predators are considered good, since the major pests are plant-eaters like aphids. But when you care about consumers, a predatory company is a pest, so a parasite attacking them would be considered beneficial (as long as they don't attack consumers as well).You didn't prove me wrong, but I appreciate details you posted though, although I know every one of them. Lindows was just to pull off the money, until they succeeded, settled and renamed. Because of lack of point beyond, they halted. But I don't know if a parasite that attacks a predator is a good parasite or a bad parasite.. I am not good at entomology.
@peppercats: "GPL is better than anarchy" is a pretty useless way of looking at things.
Looking at the state of uclibc, I see indications that GNU licenses may not always be different from anarchy.
Looking at sqlite, I see that PD software can avoid chaos.
Looking at Berkeley DB's Sleepycat license, I see that a fairly strong copyleft can be compatible with many licenses.
Reading the BSD license, I don't see how it qualifies as anarchy--it leaves more courses of action open, but it specifies terms that you must conform to.
And I don't think that "use GPL" is better than "use the license of your choice"--if a monoculture in software is bad because it's a monoculture, why is a single license good?
It reads more like a dysphemism, a strawman, or a false dilemma than a good argument, and I fail to see any interpretation for which I'd agree with the intended argument.
Now, I have to see how a debate over CDDL came up in the discussion of a GPL/LGPL-licensed Windows clone.
Last edited by i386reaper; 06-06-2013 at 02:31 AM.
Takes one to know one? I, for one, don't hate Linux (or any OS, for that matter...), don't use any BSD on a regular basis (only once in a blue moon), and use any OS I am afforded provided it does what I need it to do. I try to support the OS that I like ((Arch)Linux), but that does not preclude me using another OS for whatever reason. Using any OS does not provide that OS any support whatsoever, unless you paid for it or are reporting bugs.