Misunderstanding of embedded system designers [LWN.net]

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 0:49 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
In reply to: Misunderstanding of embedded system designers by karim
Parent article: GPLv3: a first look

Karim,

I have to disagree. I've just finished reading Stallman's "Free
Software, Free Society" lately (it's a collection of essays and speeches
he's done throughout the year).

When I saw the new GPL license draft, I felt very much like the FSF
was adhering to the principles on which it, and the free software
movement it advances, were founded.

By contrast, I think the accusation of "short-sighted and stubborn
policies" indicates a desire that they yield in some part of their core
mission. If I look at the landscape on which we now sit, I see the FSF as
being the organization responsible for maintaining the uncompromising
idealism on which our modern software society is now based. If someone
wants to make compromises, perhaps it can be OSI? (small jab :P)

Remember that no one has any 'duty' to support business with their
free software. The FSF, in its documents, makes this clear. However, they
do concede that once they satisfy freedoms, they can work to satisfy
business as well.

Just some random thoughts.

- Chase

(Log in to post comments)

Misunderstanding of embedded system designers

Posted Jan 17, 2006 9:34 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I concur. I can see very little wrong with this GPL revision: I was fearing a repeat of the GFDL fiasco, but it seems my fears were unfounded. Bravo!

(Oh, and if there's one thing nobody can describe RMS as, it's `blind'. He's shown a consistent record over the last few decades of foreseeing threats to software freedom a decade or so before they become obvious to most people.)