Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> Ingres Joins The Eclipse Foundation
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Ingres Corporation, a Business Open Source software company, announced it has
> | become a member of the Eclipse Foundation. The Eclipse Foundation is an open
> | source, not-for-profit member-supported corporation that helps cultivate both
> | an Open Source community and an ecosystem of complementary products and
> | services.
> `----
One might note that Eclipse licenses (EPL and CPL) are "incompaible"
with mighty GNU GPL.
>
> http://opensourceblog.itproportal.com/?p=392
>
> Yahoo!'s bet on Hadoop
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Having more than a couple of hundred million pages in the index was too
> | expensive for a non-profit open source project to manage. One of the
> | important truths of Web 2.0 is that it ain't the personal computer era any
> | more, Eben Moglen's arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.
> `----
>
> http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/08/yahoos_bet_on_h.html
http://blogs.cnet.com/5530-13505_1-0-10.html?forumID=166&messageID=2470294&threadID=226206
-------
Matt -- Eben didn't want to talk about freedom
Posted by timoreilly (See profile) - August 1, 2007 1:44 PM PDT
He just wanted to talk about his idea of freedom, which is different
from mine. I've been talking for the past half dozen years about how
focusing on the wrong freedoms will doom free software to irrelevance.
What good does it do us to have free software if we're facing a future
in which the key source of lock-in is no longer software? I think Eben
is fighting the last war. It's as though someone were saying we needed
to be focusing on proprietary hardware back in the 1980s, when it was
already apparent that the locus of lock-in had moved to software.
I believe that Web 2.0 and software as a service have fundamentally
changed the game, and that free software advocates need to go back to
first principles in thinking about what freedoms matter in the new
environment.
Eben didn't want to talk about that. He just wanted to score points, and
position free software vs. open source as an "us vs. them." I was really
disappointed that he would agree to come talk about an important issue,
and then say it was a non-issue, claiming that Google is "thermal noise"
in the context of free software.
When one of the people in the audience asked the question instead of me,
he was a bit more forthcoming, answering that he believed that he was
faced with a choice of rights, and that the rights of an SaaS provider
to privacy outweighed the rights of the original developer of any GPL'd
software.
That's a great point, but I really regretted that he wasn't willing to
have a real conversation about an important issue, and instead built and
proceeded to attack a straw man. He has a lot to say, but preferred to
spend most of his time on cheap shots and insults rather than a debate.
I'm surprised at you giving him attaboys. If I sat down with him and
started insulting him and the free software movement, I doubt I'd get
the same kudos. I don't mind disagreement -- in fact, I was hoping for
vigorous debate. But I was hoping for debate about issues, and there I
was sadly disappointed in Eben.
I thought Stephen Walli's analysis was spot on.
Matt -- you've spent a lot of time talking with me. You know I care a
lot about freedom. I just have a different idea about what freedoms
matter than Eben does.
I thought I took his insults in good humor, but the more I've thought
about it, the more disappointed I've become in how he acted. He was
grandstanding. It was dishonest and disrespectful.
-------
regards,
alexander.
--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."
-- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
|
|
