Trademarks and their limits
Posted Feb 8, 2013 22:22 UTC (Fri) by khim
In reply to: Trademarks and their limits
Parent article: Trademarks and their limits
plus the user/developer has the option of bypassing the distro
User yes, developer no. It's extremely hard to create binary package for Linux (the most you can usually hope for is few different packages for a few popular distributions... and even then there are no guarantee that said packages will be forward-compatible because libraries come and go in Linux distributions willy-nilly.
show me a quote _anywhere_ where I "rave about moral wrongness of closed-source software" That is not something I do, because it reflects a stance I do not believe in.
In the very next sentence, basically. Actions speak louder than words.
distro systems have their set of requirements (which boil down to "it must be freely redistributable as source, not too hard to build, and someone must volunteer to do the work")
Right. And since it's the only way to make your software easily available for the distribution user it basically means it's an ultimatum "create FOSS-software only, or else we'll punish you".
iOS has their set of requirements (which boil down to "it must not be deemed offensive in any way, and must not compete with Apple in any way"), and the user/developer has no option for bypassing Apple (except on the developers device)
Sure. It's a problem. But
1. The carrot is much, much bigger (there are hundreds of millions of iOS users compared to may be few millions for Linux).
2. Stick is also much smaller (you can be punished if you create some Apple-competing product, but most developers don't do that).
There are no pure black nor pure white in our world, it's all shades of gray and iOS is much, much, MUCH more developer-friendly shade.
It's hard to see how Apple's stance is better than the others.
Really? It's very easy to measure: how many developers find Apple's stance unacceptable vs how many developers find Linux distributions stance unacceptable. Sure, Apple are not saints, but they:
1. Provide stable platform for application development
2. Reject relatively few applications.
while Linux distributions:
1. Start with a demand which 90% of developers find totally unacceptable.
2. Offer "as-is platform" where "great deal of the day" can be summarized as "you can do whatever you want but we offer no promises and it's your responsibility to chase changes in our ABI".
Note that I'm not saying that Linux distributions must support commercial developers. They are mostly volunteer organizations and they can do whatever they want. But they can't simultaneously talk about "desktop for Joe Average" and ignore needs of developers who create software for said "Joe Average".
to post comments)