Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Nice ad hominem attackNice ad hominem attackPosted Oct 24, 2004 4:06 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)In reply to: Nice ad hominem attack by robla Parent article: How to be a Free Software zealot (NewsForge) OK, I wasn't going to take the trouble to decompose his piece, but since you don't seem to notice the problems with it: Zealot: He didn't call it GNU/Linux! And the Apache license isn't free enough! If Robin were to read what the FSF actually has to say about the Apache license, he'd see:
FSF talking about "practical problems" and it being OK to run software under a license they'd prefer you not apply stinks of the pragmatism Robin would have you believe they eschew. To be a true Free Software zealot, you should avoid using software whose license is not compatible with the GPL, especially if it uses one of the licenses on this list. Zealot: Yeah! These licenses aren't compatible with the GPL. But ... umm ... I kind of like Mozilla (and I like Firefox a lot), and my Web site runs on Apache, so ... umm ...
The others on this list vary in their perniciousness. Some are awful, some are just a little bit out of bounds and need to be looked at with care. The Open Source folks, too, draw a line and point out what crosses that line as something to be avoided. It's all in the OSD. One reason for the tremendous success of Open Source is the partnership enforced by those license terms. Zealot: You didn't call it "Point and Click GNU/Linux"! You suck! Actually, Zealot, I have a whole chapter called "Joining the Linux Community" that starts with GNU, not Linux. I decided that, just once, a book about Linux was going to tell the story of how it came about from the beginning instead of starting with Linus Torvalds. It sounds as if Robin answers this one himself. Friend, I'm sorry to be the first one to tell you this, but hardly anyone spends much time thinking about software licenses or patents. ... They click on EULAs without thinking about them. Yes, I am able to run a lucrative expert-witness practice because people do this, and get their bosses sued. And I sell IP For Engineers classes to those bosses who don't want to end up in court. Not caring gets you into lots of trouble. So, the only answer to someone who says "people don't care about that" is "they're stupid. and they'll pay for it eventually". Bruce
(Log in to post comments)
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 24, 2004 4:19 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Oops, I missed the Mozilla issue.Almost all Mozilla software is available under LGPL or GPL. So, the Mozilla folks seem to appreciate the problems with their own license, too, and Mozilla is indeed free enough for Free Software Zealots. Bruce
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 3:39 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The problems with non-GPL-compatible free software are partly due to network effects. There is far more GPL code out there than code that is licensed under some GPL-incompatible license, so whenever someone makes the mistake of choosing a different license, they usually wind up dual-licensing, and that's exactly what Mozilla did. Objecting to licenses that impose restrictions beyond what the GPL imposes is often done on a purely pragmatic basis; it makes a software island of code that can't be used anywhere else.(This is also a problem with the FSF's GFDL license, but that's another discussion).
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 8:56 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] Mozilla Firefox should be considered non-free, IMHO. They use theirtrademark to protect their product: Yes, you are allowed to distribute and modify it, but you are NOT allowed to use the name neither the graphics(!). IMHO, the graphics is an integral part of a GUI software package. Ergo: non-free. (Note: the fact that all Linux distributors distribute Mozilla doesn't change the fact that they need to get special exceptions on a case basis and that the Mozilla project has reserved them the right to shoot down distributors in the future.)
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 9:02 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Trademarks have nothing to do with Open Source; Linux(R) itself is trademarked by one L. Torvalds.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 10:42 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] Trademarks have everything to do with open source. Much like copyrighthas everything to do with it. The GPL license builds on copyright law. But if your GPL'd code contains lots of trademarked words, then trademark laws are also in effect and can restrict distribution in ways the GPL was designed to protect. Much like Linux itself is a trademark of Linus, Linux itself is also a copyright of numerous people. The license under which you can use it is what open source is all about.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 12:42 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] But if your GPL'd code contains lots of trademarked words, then trademark laws are also in effect and can restrict distribution in ways the GPL was designed to protect. If your code contains trademarks or copyrighted works that are not your own, normal restrictions apply. I'm pretty sure the GPL respects that, so what's the problem?
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 21:23 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] I was merely explaning how trademark law as well as copyright law canretrict distribution of software, as you said they have nothing to do with each other. My original comment was about that I think that a software should have all parts free (copyright as well as trademark license) to be considered free as a whole, and gave Firefox as a counterexample.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 21:50 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I am not quite sure what you mean. The GPL is actually quite restrictive, and only through its restrictions does it provide freedom. This is a way of saying that freedom is not as simple as getting rid of as much restrictions as we can.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 9:34 UTC (Mon) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] Yeah yeah yeah ..
Tell you what if everyone that has crawled out of the wood work on the
It is just amazing how many people appear when some worm of a jurno has got his nutts in his hands .
Mozilla BTW is great and the fact that people MIGHT have to ask to include it in a distro places no problems oj it at all AFAICS
Pete .
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 10:44 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] Indeed. So where are you in all this? Your opinion might carry some moreweight if you were actually a packager for a major distro having to deal with all this stuff.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 12:14 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Having heard a lot about the FSF's philosophy, the grandparent is right.
All Mozilla's trademark stuff does is shoot THEMSELVES in the foot if they play nasty.
It does NOT restrict the USER's freedom at all. Don't forget - the FSF doesn't give a damn about DISTRIBUTORS.
Cheers,
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Nov 4, 2004 15:57 UTC (Thu) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] On the contrary. It is the user's freedoms that are being restricted. Thedistributions can all ask and get special exceptions. Each and every user that wants to extend Mozilla in some way can't possibly ask the Mozilla organisation for special permission. That is the case today. Unless you want to redo the graphics and change the name, of couse, but that might be a bit more work than you originally had expected. It's your choice.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 24, 2004 19:29 UTC (Sun) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] It seems to me that he's specifically not counting the FSF as zealots. He and his employer both contribute to them, and he presumably wouldn't support people spewing rhetoric he felt was detrimental to his (and their) cause. Furthermore, the FSF's position is, as you point out, not what he says the zealots say. And he never actually accuses any particular people or groups of being zealots. He probably thought that the introduction about the FSF would be sufficient to imply that he didn't mean either them or anyone less idealistic.
So I think he actually means people he encounters in his daily life or in slashdot comments who tend to oppose anything the FSF says anything bad about (beyond the FSF's actual issue with it), quote RMS inappropriately, and forget that the point of Free Software includes software and not just licensing.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 21:57 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Give it another try, Bruce. You got it wrong in the first quote already.
|
|
||||||||||||