For what I believe is the definitive article on this,
http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/hacking/fsvos.html
An excellent roundup. Biased, sure, but who isn't?
----- Original Message -----
From: Raju Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [linux-delhi] gnu website and linux.com
> Hi Sandip,
>
> This whole issue, as you pointed out, is quite confusing. Here's my
> take on the various entities involved with the movement:
>
> GPL: The GPL only restricts the freedom to take away rights to source
> from anyone. In other words, if you put a piece of software under the
> GNU General Public License, no one will ever be able to distribute
> that software (whether as original or modified) without also
> distributing or undertaking to distribute the source code. This is
> sometimes referred to as a `viral' license, since if you use a piece
> of GPL software as a base for your project, you will be forced to make
> the whole project GPL.
>
> Linus: Linus Torvalds, the author of Linux, has a pragmatic approach
> towards the GPL. He prefers software to be GPL, but doesn't have
> anything against commercial software as long as it does what he wants
> it to do. He has no issues with people bundling commercial software
> with Linux.
>
> RMS: Richard Stallman, the father of the free software movement and
> the primary author of the GPL, is more rigid in his stance towards
> software. He believes that all software should be free (i.e. GPL'd),
> and tries to stamp out commercialisation of software wherever he can
> find it. RMS, for instance, is against RedHat and O'Reilly because
> they make successful (partly) proprietary products for the free
> software world, and this, he feels, stifles the creation of successful
> non-proprietary products.
>
> Commercial: It may seem like a contradiction, but free software is
> commercial! You can sell it, customise it, enhance it, support it or
> modify it for money. Hence, once again, the ``free'' in ``free
> software'' refers to freedom (i.e. the freedom to have the source and
> to do anything you like with it) rather than lack of price. Of
> course, free software usually tends to be unpriced also, but that is
> changing.
>
> Anand Babu: Is a rabid RMS-ite. AB believes strongly in what RMS
> says, and is not willing to be flexible in his position towards
> commercial software. Correct me if I'm wrong, Babu, but doesn't some
> of your anger against Linus come from his calling Hurd ``bloated,
> slow... much too complex''? But Babu's opinions are important since
> it is people like him with fire in their bellies who try to change the
> world -- unlike the other person mentioned under :-)
>
> Me: Am also a rabid RMS-ite. However, I'm willing to let other people
> do whatever they want with their software, i.e. commercialise it, make
> it proprietary, etc. I'd /advise/ and /push/ them towards making it
> open, but I believe that it's finally their choice. Software that I
> write, of course, is GPL'd in the true tradition of the free software
> movement.
>
> So have you got any answers to your questions? Probably not... this
> whole movement is one of unanswered questions. Of course, unanswered
> questions are what lead to progress. What is right? What is wrong?
> Is what IBM and SGI doing to the free software movement OK? What
> about RedHat? So help me God, I don't know! And I'd look with
> suspicion at anyone who claims that s/he knows all the answers.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Raju
>
> >>>>> "Sandip" == Sandip Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Sandip> I am still a bit confused with the whole point of this
> Sandip> discussion. We all want serious business to be done with
> Sandip> Linux. Is it only that organisations are only expected to
> Sandip> USE Linux and rather not make any money out of it?
>
> Sandip> It is ok, if consultants charge money for linux advice,
> Sandip> companies charge money for letting others access their
> Sandip> Web/Mail/ servers running Linux etc. if ISP's make money
> Sandip> selling their service based on Linux. Aren't this all
> Sandip> commercial services based on Linux?
>
> Sandip> By that logic isn't distribution/redistribution again a
> Sandip> service? So what if packaging is done to distribute it
> Sandip> better.
>
> Sandip> What about companies like IBM, SGI which sell 'total
> Sandip> Linux' systems and make money based on it? Or is it
> Sandip> something else? Is it that people don't want such
> Sandip> companies(like RedHat) to grow too rich, or maybe too
> Sandip> influential to change the direction of the Linux movement.
>
> Sandip> Sometimes I suspect that half the anger against even M$ is
> Sandip> because it has been too successful(atleast in the get rich
> Sandip> part...see? even I keep falling in the trap ;)
>
> Sandip> If we seriously want Linux to catch on... we should at the
> Sandip> very least don't mind people doing good business
> Sandip> with/for/along it.
>
> Sandip> Or am I seriously, sickenly wrong somewhere??????????
>
> Sandip> - A very confused Sandip
>
> The mailing list archives are available at
> http://lists.linux-india.org/cgi-bin/wilma/linux-delhi/
>
The mailing list archives are available at
http://lists.linux-india.org/cgi-bin/wilma/linux-delhi/
