On 06/06/2010 11:49 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sunday 06 June 2010 03:59:26 you wrote:
(*) just to ward off the pedants who are already frothing in the mouth, I
am aware that GPL isn't the first free software license, but it is the
first 'free software as defined by the 4 freedoms license' -- which
ultimately is the reason why linux as well as a lot of software is as free
as it is now. It probably is the only free software license that has been
tested in court.
that is because it is practically the only free software license that
restricts the rights of it's users and hence requires protection from the
court - the truly free software licenses do not have such restrictions.
That is debatable. I stick by my assertion that the reason linux grew at the
pace it did and yet continued to be free as opposed to being hijacked and
^improved^ upon in a closed source manner is credit to the GPL.
If you want to use/modify/redistribute the code, you do so under the same terms
that it was offered to you. It is not a choice. It is a /requirement/. So, while
you may call this 'restrictive' of the "rights of it's users", I call it true
participatory nature.
IMHO, linux grew faster and better than the BSDs because of this. IMHO,
OpenSolaris has not gained the community participation that linux has because of
this. IMHO, the reason there isn't an Apple/Sun/Novell/M$/Google OS based on the
linux kernel which is 'oh-so-kickass-but-severely-user-right-restricting'
because of this.
Everyone plays by the same rules so that everyone benefits.
Saying that the GPL is restrictive is saying that the linux kernel is
restrictive to participation. That assertion is just ridiculous.
cheers,
- steve
--
random spiel: http://lonetwin.net/
what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/
_______________________________________________
ILUGC Mailing List:
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
