On Monday 07 June 2010 02:43:17 you wrote: > Invalid. > > All free operating systems follow the bazaar model. Only linux became > mainstream and stayed free. Mach+BSD became mainstream in their OSX avatar > but it is non-free:
I beg to differ - from what I have read about the development of GCC and EMACS, the development model was more cathedral style as long as RMS was the BDFL. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X > > Did you read the links I posted ? Here is a quote in one of them from linus > himself: > > """ > But for a project I actually care about, I would never choose the BSD > license. The license doesn't encode my fundamental beliefs of 'fairness'. > I think the BSD license encourages a 'everybody for himself' mentality, > and doesn't encourage people to work together, and to merge." > > "Let me put this in source management terms, since I've also been > working on a source control management project for the last few years: > the BSD license encourages 'branching', but the fact is, branching is not > really all that interesting. What's interesting is 'merging': the > branching is just a largely irrelevant prerequisite to be able to merge. > > "The GPLv2 encourages *merging*. Again, the right to 'branch' needs to > be there in order for merges to be possible, but the right to branch is > actually much less important than the right to 'merge'." > > """ > > Do you really want to disagree with linus about his choice of license for > his own OS ? He has said plenty of times (read the links I posted) that > choosing the GPLv2 license was the best thing he did for linux !! ...and > you want to deny it's effect ? ...if you do, you are just being > unreasonably stubborn, pretty much like the character this thread talks > about. any one is free to choose his own license. And linus was quite free to chose GPL - and since he has licensed git under the same license, it looks like he is still pro GPL. But I have to disagree with him in his assesment of BSD style licenses. I do not see anything untoward happening with projects like Apache, python, postgresql et al. I have been called unreasonably stubborn - and btw it is one of the things I appreciate about RMS. > > > Stallman is a genius - no doubt about it. But he is incapable of > > working collaboratively with others - which linus does, and guido and a > > whole lot of other bdfls. If you want to learn about how to talk about > > freedom - listen to RMS. If you want to learn how to write open source > > software and sustain it - listen to linus. > > True as it maybe, it is not rms's genius, but his stubbornness to not > confirm and take the easy path, as most others would've, that laid the > foundations of the larger movement that we know as FOSS today. > > Like I said in one of my other posts in this thread, talking about freedom > and writing open source software are not mutually exclusive ! > > Linus, irrespective of what you want to imagine, cares deeply about > freedom too (read the links), he just prefers to be pragmatic about it. > where did I ever say that he does not care about freedom? All I am saying is that in order for software to be truly free, it should follow a particular methodology of development - for want of a better word, the bazaar methodology. And this is also in context of many of our local developers. They will not keep committing code - they wait till it is 'complete' - by which time it is too late for any one else to help out. So we get large number of one-man projects. One of the reasons for this is that they think that as long as the code is released under a free license, it is open source software. It is not - there is much more to open source software than just making the code available for download. A whole support system needs to be built - it is only then that the true power of open source comes into play. -- regards kg http://livejournal.com/lawgon _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
