22 Jun
2003
22 Jun
'03
9:21 p.m.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 05:52:47PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
it clearly doesn't.
but to summarize:
it's a bad idea.
it's morally and ethically questionable (within my value system).
i would not help or promote projects that adopted this license.
if i wanted to use it, it would encourage me to write a workalike that is
free (for my value of free).
but certainly you are free to license your work as you see fit.
rob
----
Robert Melby
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt4255a
Internet: async(a)cc.gatech.edu
Software would remain open-source. But the assumption
is if you are
willing to part with the freedoms Linux and other GNU OS's offer, and
[...]
I disagree. It penalizes the company so that it cannot claim that it is
Unix-like environment when it does not run (albeit for licensing
reasons) Unix software.
that sounds suspiciously like a marginal effect.
i know the open group certifies os's as unix, who certifies them as
unix-like? does that mean they would be unix-like-like if they
couldn't get unix-like certification? (and really, they can (and will)
claim whatever they like).
it has only been very recently that software from one unix could even
be run on another without porting (recompiled or not) and only because
of bend-over-backwards-to-make-it-work solutions like autotools. unix
as a class was (and is) defined as much by its mutual
incompatibilities as anything else. luckily we have mac os <= 9 and
windows to say "well it's not one of those".
You are mixing two notions: popularity of free
software vs. popularity
of _free OS_. Two are not the same.
why the preoccupation with operating systems? why stop there when
greed and avarice so clearly motivates intel and amd and the other
major chip manufacturers? why should we allow them to support intel
and amd *and* use our software?
once we solve that problem what is next on the agenda? this would be a
fantastic ploy: get everyone to depend on some app and then when they
least suspect have the next version of the software include a license
that requires one of the following: be a good country, stop war, stop
hunger, buy you an icecream sandwhich, or a hojillion bucks (in small
bills near the trashcan).
But even if they get in contact with the oss as you
pointed out, my
personal experience has taught me that they do not say "cool app, let me
switch to the oss OS." Rather, they say, "cool app, let's download
more"
since it obviously works just fine on their OS and there is no need to
use Linux or any other oss OS. Hence, there is no benefit in it for
Linux.
what is the purpose of converting everyone to Linux (or any other oss
OS)? is it for their own good? for our good? or because you know once
they *understand*, they will be part of the revolution too, and then
we could really stick it to ms and apple? how does that help linux?
linux doesn't in general need more users, it needs more participants
(ie coders, etc).
With my proposal the schools would realize that with
Linux they would
get both the cheap computer and all the software they needed for free,
instead of licensing the closed source alternatives. It would be simply
an economical decision if nothing else.
because they want a unix-like environment? are you sure it's all the
software they need? is it free or free as long as you run the stuff we
say you have to and whatever else we care to think up ?
(and if anyone
wants to start a company that gives away free audio
software and sells hardware, lesson plans, training, and support to
k-12 (and especially economically disadvantaged) schools to create
hands on music classes count me in. you would probably be eaten alive
by good press).
Sorry, you lost me there. I guess you are implying it's a good thing,
and I concur. However, I do not see how it connects with the stuff
above.