Comments on: Linux Adoption Goals http://www.darjix.com/linux-adoption-goals?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=linux-adoption-goals This is a Personal Blog Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:57:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bob http://www.darjix.com/linux-adoption-goals/comment-page-1#comment-29 Bob Sat, 26 May 2007 02:04:00 +0000 http://www.darjix.com/?p=75#comment-29 Alejo - true enough.<BR/><BR/>Sal - I guess my broader point is that, if you're objective is Linux ubiquity, then GPLv2 is working very well. BSD would be an obstacle to ubiquity, and my concern is that GPLv3 could be an obstacle to ubiquity. If ubiquity is your goal, then GPLv2 could be the best balance bt freedom and flexibility.<BR/><BR/>If your goal is simply to maximize software freedom, then GPLv3 is better. But you may wind up with fewer users of the software.<BR/><BR/>So it's not a question of closed vs. free software, it's a question of just how much freedom and just how much flexibility. How you answer that question depends on your ultimate goal, which is why you and I differ on GPLv2 vs. v3.<br /> Alejo – true enough.

Sal – I guess my broader point is that, if you’re objective is Linux ubiquity, then GPLv2 is working very well. BSD would be an obstacle to ubiquity, and my concern is that GPLv3 could be an obstacle to ubiquity. If ubiquity is your goal, then GPLv2 could be the best balance bt freedom and flexibility.

If your goal is simply to maximize software freedom, then GPLv3 is better. But you may wind up with fewer users of the software.

So it’s not a question of closed vs. free software, it’s a question of just how much freedom and just how much flexibility. How you answer that question depends on your ultimate goal, which is why you and I differ on GPLv2 vs. v3.

]]> By: Alejandro http://www.darjix.com/linux-adoption-goals/comment-page-1#comment-28 Alejandro Fri, 25 May 2007 23:25:00 +0000 http://www.darjix.com/?p=75#comment-28 I don’t think contributing to free software is altruistic, from a developer’s point of view. I have often contributed to free software projects for entirely selfish reasons.

Also, I don’t think anyone believes the terms of the GPL license are being changed “just to kill the [MS/Novell] deal”.

]]> By: Sal Darji http://www.darjix.com/linux-adoption-goals/comment-page-1#comment-27 Sal Darji Fri, 25 May 2007 23:02:00 +0000 http://www.darjix.com/?p=75#comment-27 The idea is to improve the GPL to prevent loopholes that result in less freedom. "Tivoization" is one of those loopholes. I'm not sure about the Novell/Microsoft deal because I don't understand the whole deal.<BR/><BR/>More generally, my point is that the freedoms allow for a contribution to society. They also enable a services-based business model. Of course you can trade in freedoms to make money, but that detracts from the community. GPLv3 will be an improvement because it defends encroachment on those freedoms. <BR/><BR/>If you don't like the philosophy or the license, you can always go with a BSD license, which will let you do the things you want to do.<br /> The idea is to improve the GPL to prevent loopholes that result in less freedom. “Tivoization” is one of those loopholes. I’m not sure about the Novell/Microsoft deal because I don’t understand the whole deal.

More generally, my point is that the freedoms allow for a contribution to society. They also enable a services-based business model. Of course you can trade in freedoms to make money, but that detracts from the community. GPLv3 will be an improvement because it defends encroachment on those freedoms.

If you don’t like the philosophy or the license, you can always go with a BSD license, which will let you do the things you want to do.

]]> By: Bob http://www.darjix.com/linux-adoption-goals/comment-page-1#comment-26 Bob Fri, 25 May 2007 01:53:00 +0000 http://www.darjix.com/?p=75#comment-26 Ah, but Sal, it's not all or nothing. The choice is between GPLv2 and GPLv3, MS/Novell deal or no MS/Novell deal. We have free software today with GPL2 and an MS/Novell deal, so why change the terms of the license just to kill the deal?<br /> Ah, but Sal, it’s not all or nothing. The choice is between GPLv2 and GPLv3, MS/Novell deal or no MS/Novell deal. We have free software today with GPL2 and an MS/Novell deal, so why change the terms of the license just to kill the deal?

]]>