-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ JEDIDIAH on Friday 28 May 2010 17:30 : \____
> On 2010-05-28, Ian Hilliard <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Homer wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Ian Hilliard spake thusly:
> [deletia]
>>>
>>> Note: Commercial and proprietary are two distict concepts. Free Software
>>> may in fact be commercial (sold).
>>>
>>> But by all means let proprietary packages be offered ... by proprietary
>>> software vendors, for use on proprietary software platforms.
>>>
>>> Let's just not poison Free Software in the process.
>>>
>>> This is more than just a statement of principles. I have a vested
>>> interest in ensuring that Free Software remains Free. I've committed a
>>> large portion of my life to it. I'd hate to think my efforts were in vein.
>>>
>>
>> I can see that you are a free software purist. I on the other hand am a
>> pragmatist. I don't see that Linux must or even should exclude
>> commercial software.
>
> A "pure" view of Free Software cannot even allow that.
>
> Those that want to make money selling shrinkwrapped boxes of software
> must be given the same liberty to use the same tools as anyone else on an
> equal footing.
>
>>
>> I see that if the basis on which development takes place, i.e. the OS,
>> is Free, then true freedom is also the freedom to make a profit. True
>> freedom is also the freedom of customers to use your products or not.
>>
>> At the moment, the commercial software houses have too much power. Too
>> much software is rammed down people's throats, destroying any semblance
>> of a true market economy. That is not to say that the commercial
>> software industry should be eliminated though.
>>
>> In a truly free market, commercial software has the right to compete
>> against Free software. Commercial software then only succeeds by being a
>> premium product at an affordable price. This is exactly what the big
>> boys in the industry want to avoid, which is why Free software is so
>> important. But, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I
>> still see a place for commercial CSS in the future.
>>
>> As long as the Linux community fights against the concept of commercial
>> software on Linux, the commercial software industry will fight Linux.
>> This is not at all an advantage for Linux.
>
> In general, extremists tend to be noisy and visible in a manner not
> warranted by their numbers
In the eyes of people who share work with their neighbours, those who withhold
this right are "extremists".
"Extremists" is often connotative with violence, so let's avoid this word.
Apache is commercial software.
Linux is commercial software.
Firefox commercial software..
And so on...
- --
~~ Best of wishes
<malaclypse>The general rule on about people on IRC seems to be
"Attractive, single, mentally stable: choose two"
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 22.6%us, 5.0%sy, 0.1%ni, 70.6%id, 1.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.4%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkwACLUACgkQU4xAY3RXLo50CACZAeLe6hjDonwCYP1+qRLuQO5h
kNkAnRbxksFh+Ii0mxqs7dILr06JQ0NN
=pN06
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
