nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> GPL was always a closed model of freedom.
>> Somehow, a "closed model of freedom" sounds like "less free" to me. :-)
> 
> It's free for other free software.  Which is good enough in my book.

Well, if you're going to start redefining the meaning of the word "free" and 
not use FSF's definition, then it's going to make for a very confusing 
conversation.

If by "free software" you mean "software that's GPL-compatible", you're just 
begging the question.

> IBM, RedHat, Novell are all major contributors of GPL'd
> Linux-related software.  How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs

I don't know. You tell me. It's your assertion.

As far as I can tell, much of the work in Linux was done by AT&T in 
designing the whole system, and BSD in setting up the APIs that make 
internet sockets work well, and commercial companies in donating time and 
effort to create IETF and W3C standards.

The actual code itself is pretty small stuff, easily reproduced.

How much did CERN contribute to WWW compared to, say, Mozilla? How much did 
MS contribute by inventing XMLHTTP, compared to the coders who implemented 
it in firefox?

> The GPL levels the playing field, the playground where everyone are children.

And by disregarding the players who aren't children, you're again begging 
the question.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message