Hi Mridul!
First of all, please don't get me wrong! I am not an anti-RMS sort of
guy(in fact I am not anti- anything and that's why I am continuing this
side of the debate). I respect RMS tremendously for the contribution he
has made to the computing world and giving the software world a new
*option* of going about their business(Please note the word option).
However, I *personally* find some of his views too harsh for my taste.
> mr> The point of discussion is not that you should not make money out of
> Linux.It is about "not calling freesoftware as commercial is problematic".
> There is no problem at all making money out of Freesoftware.Freedom is not
> just about money.......it is more than that..........
> The word Freedom actually is creating a lot of confusion as people tend to
> think in terms of money..........
> Freedom as in GPL means the liberty to go thro',.modify ,redistribute the
> Freesoftware .Please read the Freedom Concepts and GPL properly..
I agree and understand the concept of "free software"('i.e. what the
free software proponents say). However, my view of *complete* freedom is
not GPL but rather the BSD license as Raj had once told us at one of
ours Dilli Haat meetings. In my view, in any rights, if there is any
sort of restrictions it can't be called *totally* free(Just think about
it, doesn't it make common sense?). In this context I therefore feel the
Freesoftware foundation is confusing people by changing the meaning of
freedom. Freedom means no strings right? I know,(and feel quite rightly
so ) that there has to be some restrictions( like keeping the sources
open) for ensuring intellectual rights. But there you are. *that's* the
string attached to the meaning of your "freedom". It is not the same as
the english word freedom, is it? (no I am not talking of money here)
FREEDOM = NO STRINGS ATTACHED
Before you flame me, please look at this possible scenario. Take the
ideal RMS world. Everybody is using GPL stuff - the compilers, the IDE,
the package, the whole stuff. And your company hits upon this amazing
algorithm that you can use to make your products edge out the whole
competition. So you go ahead and make it, and just when you are able to
launch it, you realize the restrictions and have to release it under GPL
(you don't want to go ahead and make it a close-sourced proprietry
product in RMS's world can you? ;-)
Now all your competitors can go ahead and use it in their programs.
"Wait!" You say. You can patent it and see to it that at least your
competitors don't use the algorithm. But hey, RMS is against patents in
the computer world too!! You lose again!.
Now, now, I AM GUILTY of not reading the GPL properly, and I do
apologise for any contrived or misdirected scenarios that i may have
written above.
But I *STRONGLY* believe this - if RMS had had his way, and Linus(or the
BSD folks) hadn't, we wouldn't have been called the ILUG-Delhi today,
but the GHBTG-Delhi(Gnu Hurd Beta? Testers Group - Delhi). Most of us
would have been working on NTs, probably running Emacs on NT(my genuine
thanks to RMS there) and we would have been meeting once a month to pray
that the Hurd/Grub would release at least by the end of this year.
(...ducking,running for cover as Anand Babu takes out his shotgun...)
>Linus
> used his own chaps to do whatever he wanted while Linus uses the world to do
> whatever he wants!! Now tell me if he encourages proprietary software and it
> becomes a major chunk of Linux system,then won't you find him asking you
> "Where do you want to do today??" rather than allowing you to ask yourself
Please let me remind you that all software projects however open they
might be, are infact coordinated by an individual or a smal group of
individuals. You can't have a focussed group in a totally democratic
environment. Take the case of projects like Fetchmail(ESR, probably a
stupid example but you get the hint i hope), even Emacs, even most of
the GNU projects, the freeBSD project.
It is the classic Democracy versus dictatorship argument. To win a war,
you need an army. To lead the army you need a commander. Have you ever
heard of a democratic army?
The linux kernel is also such a project. At times there are decisions
which have to be taken quickly without going through a referendum or a
parliamentry debate(take a look at the Indian parliament). Linus has
filled that slot. what's wrong with that?
>
> If he wanted his own way,he shouldn't have GPLed Linux(then linux wouldn't
> have been so popular)........and if he has GPLed Linux he should stick to it
> and stop playing double games.
In fact his initial Kernel license went a step ahead of GPL. He had
initially made it *mandatory* for source to be packed along with the
distribution. He only decided to opt for GPL because he felt it was more
practical. That's what I like about him so much. He is practical. Not an
utopian like you know who... ;-)
Regards,
Sandip
P.S. Nothing personal about anything I said above.
--
Sandip Bhattacharya
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
DSF Internet Services Pvt. Ltd.
ICQ: 38380743
----------------------
The mailing list archives are available at
http://lists.linux-india.org/cgi-bin/wilma/linux-delhi/
