| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it?if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it?Posted Feb 1, 2010 5:26 UTC (Mon) by nevyn (subscriber, #33129)In reply to: if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it? by quotemstr Parent article: Canonical copyright assignment policy 'same as others' (ITWire)
> Without the FSF, we wouldn't have a high-quality free compiler at all.
That's obviously false, it's like saying without the FSF we wouldn't have a
(Log in to post comments)
if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it? Posted Feb 1, 2010 10:08 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
You can't oppose the FSF and Cygnus.
Cygnus (and now Red Hat) have largely been successful because they've embraced the GPL and worked with the FSF instead of trying to cross it as many others did and still try to do.
Some people are so set in their no-FSF or no-RMS world they do not realise that in practice working with the FSF or RMS is not the disaster they paint.
if copyright assignment is so evil, why don't you oppose FSF requiring it? Posted Feb 2, 2010 5:19 UTC (Tue) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]
fwiw, between pcc from the bsd camp and llvm, we have healthy competition for
gcc. Granted gcc is still light years ahead of both, but we have competition. In the end, competition is good for all free or not.
|
|
||||||||||||