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.

> certainly doesn't sound like "better for society" or "information wants to
> be free" sorts of slogans the FSF normally uses.

They are consistent in that they are pro free software, anti closed software and
they think free software is better for society.

> Mind explaining under what circumstances GPL software leads to faster
> evolution than MIT software?

Sure, you clipped it away from my previous post, so here you go again:

IBM, RedHat, Novell are all major contributors of GPL'd
Linux-related software.  How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
without fear of their good work ending up powering their competition products,
who may make it one better and not disclose the modifications?

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

Post a reply to this message