Martin Konold wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Mark wrote:
>
> No, the license of kde libraries will not change. KDE wants to allow
> commercial programs (in contrast to RMS) but make shareware crap
> difficult. (in accordance to the oppinion of Linus)
I this what is called a double standard?; it is "ok" for big companies to
make closed source software, but it should be a pain for small. I am not a
fan of closed-source software, but if I use it I don't care if the developer
is a canadian developer called Corel, or a small 1 person indian developer,
whose annual income is equal to the Qt licensing fees.
As I stated before and as I am sure RMS disagrees with, my opinion of
software creation freedom is that it also gives people the right to make
wrong decisions without beeing penalized for it. The Linux community has
gotten to its current state because people of their own free will has choosen
to let their software be freely distributed, not because people has been
forced to do it.
Where RMS, and partly you, are wrong is the assumption that freedom can be
archieved through the use of force. To move this example out of the software
realm, you don't give the women of Iran their freedom by forcing them to stop
covering their faces and heads, but they giving them the opportunity to do
so.
Sincerely,
Christian "freedomfigher" Schaller
