I hardly think we're begging here. Far from it; through this whole mess of
"Linus doesn't scale", I think people are missing the fact that things are
still moving. Hence, we don't have to jump on the first solution that
comes along; we can bide our time and select a framework that fits both
the needs and principles of the primary developers.
> You're supposed to be using the software that deals with the problem,
> not some half-assed GPL'd variant.
Supposed to be? I would think that they're "supposed to be using" software
that they're comfortable with.
If the licensing of a product makes me uncomfortable, I won't use it.
Simple. Effective. I'm happy, and the more people who vote like me, the
bigger the hint passed along to the licensee. *shrug*
And I think some free software developers (myself included) would find
your depiction of GPL'd software as being 'half-assed' more than a little
insulting. You're lumping Linux, glibc, egcs, etc. into this mix too, I
suppose?
> The license Larry is proposing is quite reasonable IMO. Basically what
> it amounts to is a royalty fee to commercial developers using Larry's
> software to make money for themselves. How can that NOT suit us? We're
> developing free software, therefore we are not required to pay for a
> commercial license.
That, frankly, isn't the point. See http://www.opensource.org/ sometime,
and see what the point Raul is trying to make is by not using something
with a psuedo-free license is (much the same reason why many people won't
use Qt).
> I can tell you misunderstand the meaning of "free".
Hmm.
> Money has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Last time I read the GPL,
> it was perfectly legal to sell software licensed under it for fun and
> profit with the provisos of the GPL such as you provide the full source
> code with it, it's allowed to be modified, etc.
You betcha. But you missed a big point; see the Open Source Definition (at
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html):
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
research.
Note the "may not restrict...from being used in a business"?
Requiring royalties or payment for use is an additional restriction on
use. The license for BitKeeper, no matter how it's worded, will violate
this point, and hence will fail to meet both the Open Source Definition
and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> I think you can now safely crawl back under your rock and stop your weak
> attempt at barricading the continued success of the Linux operating
> system.
Ah, yes, he's seriously impeding Linux development by trying to protect
some of the values that it was built on.
Luckily, this is an open list, and noone can really be bullied into being
quiet here ("crawl back under your rock"? Really, do you really think
someone will take that seriously?).
-- Edward S. Marshall <emarshal@logic.net> http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/ -o) ------------------------------------------------------ ----- ---- --- -- /\\ Who'd have thought that we'd be freed from the Gates of hell by a penguin? _\_v
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/