User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

GNU/Busybox ?!?

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 21, 2007 12:21 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083)
In reply to: GNU/Busybox ?!? by lysse
Parent article: The road to freedom in the embedded world

What do I want? I want a stable environment for programmers to collaborate in free from politics and idealism. The GPL3 is in direct opposition to that because it places restrictions on what product people can build using their own code if they want to licence that code solely under the GPL3.

I also want an environment free from FSF scaremongering, or at least an acceptance that it's not just Microsoft who uses FUD to promote their own agenda.

The FSF aren't acting in the interests of programmers anymore, period.


(Log in to post comments)

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 21, 2007 19:37 UTC (Wed) by anonymous1 (guest, #41963) [Link]

FSF was never about programmers. It was about users and users freedoms.

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 22, 2007 9:33 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

Yes, but for the FSF, users == programmers. The GPL is all about securing free access to the source code so people can hack on it some more and share the results.

Anselm

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 22, 2007 10:59 UTC (Thu) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link]

Yep. It was only when people started using GPL code in products that RMS didn't approve of that the spin changed and the GPL was all about users rather than code.

Certainly in the projects I'm involved with, it's all about the code rather than "freedom".

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 22, 2007 11:30 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

The GPL can't really be »all about users« when it explicitly says that it does not regulate use of the code but modification and distribution (in original or modified form). The closest most »users« come to exploiting their GPL freedoms is when they pass complete Linux CDs on to their buddies (which is a good thing, to be sure), but to really make use of the freedoms the GPL gives you, you need to be a programmer. Which, to the FSF, used to be fine, because on ITS, everybody was a programmer! It is only with today's easily available PCs etc. that the gap between »users« and »programmers« has become so obvious.

In fact, the main paradigm shift with GPLv3 is that it tries to branch out into regulating what may be done with the code (e.g., don't build a DRM system with secret keys) rather than to the code (e.g., change it, pass it on). It is understandable that many people do not buy this.

Anselm

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 29, 2007 18:40 UTC (Thu) by TRauMa (guest, #16483) [Link]

The GPL can't be all about users if it doesn't impose restrictions on users? Huh? I think you get it completely backwards here, the GPL imposes restrictions on distributors to ensure the freedom of the users.

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 22, 2007 18:09 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Read the GNU Manifesto. It has *always* been about the users, from day 1. (It doesn't require that users be programmers in order to benefit: non-programmer users can hire programmers if the software is free, which is not an option otherwise.)

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 22, 2007 11:13 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> The GPL3 is in direct opposition to that because it places restrictions on what product people can build using their own code if they want to licence that code solely under the GPL3.

I don't believe you. Justify that statement.

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 22, 2007 11:25 UTC (Thu) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link]

Why do I get the feeling you're not willing to listen?

GNU/Busybox ?!?

Posted Mar 22, 2007 12:47 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

Too much caffeine?


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds