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

Behind the Puppet license change

Behind the Puppet license change

Posted May 12, 2011 3:04 UTC (Thu) by elanthis (guest, #6227)
Parent article: Behind the Puppet license change

There are also platforms for which the GPL is simply unusable. Quite a few embedded platforms that are tightly controlled by vendors, like the iOS platforms, or the XBox.

While the GNU proponents of course argue that these platforms simply shouldn't be used, the reality is that for many of us those platforms are key and we're rather the entire GNU project die in a flood rather than give up on supporting platforms that over 90% of our target userbase owns. I mean, I'd prefer that the platforms were more open myself, but supporting them is simply vastly more important to my personal and professional interests than in supporting GNU. Permissive licenses allow an entirely FOSS project to be released for FOSS-hostile platforms, while licenses like the GPL ensure that those mega-popular platforms will only ever include mega-proprietary software.


(Log in to post comments)

Behind the Puppet license change

Posted May 13, 2011 13:44 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

we're rather the entire GNU project die in a flood

That's nice.

I mean, I'd prefer that the platforms were more open myself, but supporting them is simply vastly more important to my personal and professional interests than in supporting GNU.

Nobody is stopping you from writing permissively-licensed software for those platforms if it turns out that the platform vendors impose draconian conditions on everyone using such platforms and the only way to get code in front of end-users is by going along with it all. Quite why GNU and copyleft licences should cease to exist so that you can go ahead with this is something I don't follow, however.

Behind the Puppet license change

Posted May 13, 2011 16:28 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Isn't taking quotes out of context fun?

elathis never said that copyleft licenses should cease to exist. In fact, quite the opposite: "I'd prefer that the platforms were more open myself..."

If you left the context around the quote, you'd probably be able to follow what he said.

Behind the Puppet license change

Posted May 13, 2011 16:55 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

I think we can all read the original comment to gain the full context without having to type it out (or copy and paste it) ourselves. That said, I don't see why the ability to deploy software on restrictive, proprietary platforms is dependent on the demise of the GNU project.

Behind the Puppet license change

Posted May 15, 2011 19:45 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I don't see why the ability to deploy software on restrictive, proprietary platforms is dependent on the demise of the GNU project.

I follow elanthis's point. I also follow yours, and agree with the way you quoted in order to make it.

Elanthis isn't saying he's faced with a choice between releasing non-GPL software and having the GNU project continue. He's using a syllogism to show how little he cares about free software.

The syllogism takes the form, "Coke costs more than Pepsi. I would rather buy Coke than drink water. Therefore, I would rather buy Pepsi than drink water.

Releasing non-GPL software hurts the Free Software cause. The GNU project dying in a flood hurts it way more. Elanthis says he would hypothetically accept the demise of the GNU project if necessary to reach his market, therefore he would release non-GPL software if necessary to reach his market.


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