[H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>
>> OK, let's agree that it is a philosophical/moral victory of sorts.
>> But what of the drawbacks? Less OSS code is written.
>
> I don't see any reason why that would happen. Indeed, with companies
> like Tivo restricting development with unmodifiable software, I'd say
> *their* actions result in less OSS code written.
I fail to see why this isn't obvious. Everyone seems to accept that
Tivo are hiding some code, and yet, even knowing this, they argue that
it's advantageous that Tivo use GPLed software in this way.
>
> What little Tivo may have contributed to /our/ Free Software (if
> anything), is largely negated by the way in which they implemented it.
>
>> Companies are chased into the arms of "the enemy", who profits from
>> the idealist's intractability.
>
> Let them.
>
> The sort of companies that would demand restrictions on Free Software,
> are more than welcome to do so, and good riddance.
The GPL's aims are clearly stated. Tivoisation is expliotation of a
loophole, it is *not* using the GPLed code as it was intended.
>
> I don't see this as a "competition". The "enemy" is only such if they
> sabotage Free Software and its associated community. They are not the
> enemy simply because they have a greater market share (monopolies
> aside), or make bigger profits. That's the kind of thinking expounded by
> the likes of Microsoft, thus motivating them to behave so aggressively.
> Like I've said before, if I was the only person in the world using Free
> Software, I'd still use it regardless. Market share is irrelevant. I
> simply do not care about domination, or even popularity. The only thing
> that matters is freedom, which is after all the entire raison d'être for
> Free Software.
Some folk have an interesting view of what constitutes and enemy...
>
> Certainly I'd like to see Microsoft's monopoly broken, but not if that
> means compromising the very thing I am trying to promote and defend. To
> do so would be to become just like that "enemy". I'd sooner that
> Microsoft won, than compromise my principles. What would be the point of
> Free Software having a bigger market share, if it was no longer Free?
This is precisely what the proprietary world would like to see, a means
of exploiting GPLed code in such a way that they get to work it as if it
be proprietary. But it's not, and was never intended to be used as if
it were BSD licensed or similar.
>
>> To me, it's not clear that it's a net gain for OSS or the world.
>
> That depends on how you measure "gain".
>
> Will rigorously defending the principles of Free Software dissuade
> certain types of companies from using and developing it? Yes,
> undoubtedly. Good.
>
> Will this mean that GNU/Linux continues to have a small market share? In
> the short-term, probably. In the long term, I'm not so sure. Certainly
> there seems to be a surprising degree of Linux adoption in the industry
> ATM, despite Free Software's "handicap". Take Asus embedding Linux into
> their motherboards, or the Eee PC, for example, both of which will run
> modified code without restrictions. Obviously not all companies are as
> suspicious and contemptible of Free Software as Tivo.
The "market share" problem only applies where misguided people think
that their value is in the software. I've yet to see a case where this
were true.
>
> As for "volume of software", well I doubt very much if I will ever use
> even a fraction of the 20,000 or so packages currently available in the
> Fedora repos, so I don't think I have much to worry about.
>
> Certainly, much of the funding for software projects comes from
> companies, and you may be concerned that if Free Software does not tempt
> companies like Tivo with compromises on freedom, then those companies
> will not offer or maintain funding. Again, I say good riddance. There
> are plenty of others out there who will fill the void, without making
> unreasonable demands. I'd sooner that Free Software had no funding at
> *all*, than be financially obligated towards those who wish to pervert
> it for their own selfish purposes.
>
I don't understand why they don't just go with a BSD codebase and be
done with it.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
