On 1/28/2009 2:39 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Chambers<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>  wrote:
>> The FSF is quite draconian in their policies.  In fact, the latest
>> efforts seem to be just as DRM infected as any closed system.
>
> Except freedoms are preserved rather than taken away.  You're still free to use
> it in *any way* you want.  And if you want to modify it for yourself or your
> organization.  You just have to comply to the GPL way if you later want to ship
> that modified work, in which case the GPL is enforced so that you don't deny
> others the same rights the GPL offered you.  Fair enough.

But it seriously limits the use for open source software in commercial 
products.  In that sense, instead of having an egalitarian, "best 
software wins" model, you have two[1] choices:

1) Use *all* closed-source software, and pay for everything,
2) Use *all* GPL software, and accept that most is crap.

Why can't we have open- and closed- source programs sitting side by side?

The FSF tweaked me when they stopped supporting the LGPL (even renaming 
it from the "Library GPL" to the "Lesser GPL").  LGPL was the single 
greatest achievement in licensing I've ever encountered[2] (it allowed 
open source libraries to be used by competitive companies), but the FSF 
doesn't think that's appropriate.  They're an "all or nothing" bunch, 
and have been pushing against the LGPL almost as long as its been around.

[1] Yes, I know I'm simplifying.

[2] The original GPL was really just about protecting rights that 
everybody already knew you had - "You can't do such and such with my 
software!" - while the LGPL was a successful hybrid of two distinct 
mindsets, allowing both open- and closed- source code to be used in the 
same project.

...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message