Re: Free software, proprietary software and Stalin

[Suresh Ramasubramanian <r.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake Arun Sharma: 

>I'm not so sure. No doubt, GNU software has resulted in cost effective
>free software, but that is not the main goal. Ask RMS and he'll tell
>that "free" as in speech is a higher goal than providing "free" as
>in beer software.

What I said is not just free s/w (as in free beer).  It's open source.  If
you want to tweak a linux kernel for your needs, or compile in support for
something non standard, proprietory (by hacking the linux kernel to
recognize it) - no problemo.  In fact, you'll be lionized :)

OTOH, try hacking Win2K to make it compatible with your favorite game (and
not waiting for M$ to release a patch).  You'll get jumped upon so fast,
you won't know what hit you.

On this topic - the Cobalt RAQ and Qube boxen use a rather old version of
linux (equivalent to redhat 5.1 and 5.2), customized with a kewl web based
admin panel but otherwise full of holes as a swiss cheese.

However, Cobalt (IIRC) says that you must download ONLY their patches
(sendmail, bind etc etc), and are prohibited from upgrading your
firmware.  You do something on your own (say compiling a new version of
sendmail / kernel) and your warranty is voided.

~How~ do they take GPL'd stuff and lock it into restrictions like
this?  Besides, their versions are so antiquated, they still ship boxen
with 2.0.x kernels and 8.8.8 sendmail (that being their latest set of
"patches").  

If you are a webhosting co and don't fix these, you run the risk of
getting yr boxen h4x0red.  If you DO fix 'em, cobalt yanks your warranty.

Now?  Is ~this~ GPL?

>Well said. I'm arguing that GPL, GNU ideals = communism, an extreme
>and that we should find the middle ground and that middle ground is the
>BSD license.

The difference being Arun that RMS is not pointing a gun at your head and
FORCING you to use GPL'd stuff.  Use BSD licensed products if you wish, or
a combination of both.  Just respect the license each product you use is
issued under - that's all imho.

>I think that BSD licensed software is more practical and benefits the
>end user more than GPL'ed software, because GPL'ed software tries to
>force it's philosophy into every form of software it mixes with.

Not much.  GPL'd software in fact is much easier to interface with other
softwares, just BECAUSE it's open source.  The solution does not change,
it never changes.  Just the conditions under which the solution is made
available change.

>GNU project does and will attempt to sue me if I try to mix their
>product in proprietary products. At least they say so publicly, though
>it hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.

I have never said that.  If, you use GPL - then just GPL the hack you made
(no more, no less) I don't see why GNU should have a beef.

>While it honors copyright, the GNU project is opposed to intellectual
>property and patenting. At least, that is my understanding.

No.  Patenting means "claiming" ownership.  OTOH, here, your ownership is
acknowledged tacitly, and you are respected even more because of this.

Suppose I have some skill which I make available free to others - if
others say "Suresh is kewl at that" (GPL)  then ok.  If ~I~ say "I'm the
best and I'll help you if you acknowledge that I'm the best when
you start helping others ..." (BSD) - that's not so kewl.

rather twisted, but I hope you got me.

>> never seen warez / cracks of GPL products :)
>That's an innovative definiton of property!

Property is measured in rather intangible terms here.

>All said and done, I believe that software license is a personal choice.
>I don't whine with GPL authors to change their license. But I don't mind
>participating in rational discussion on the issue :)

Calling either GPL or BSD brain dead is NO solution at all.

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian     | President, CAUCE India
r.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   | suresh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.india.cauce.org | Stopping Spam In India
--
Those who can't write, write manuals.