Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
> 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
Totally Confused #!@$%%^^*
segmentation fault
core dumped.
Regarding ...BSD license, It does not protect the programmers of ...BSD.
I want programmers(or any contributors) should be respected highly for
his work and he should be paid.
Already around 50% of WinNT code is stolen from FreeBSD, I suppose.
And MS is making money out of it. Is this not wrong ???
> 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? ;-)
Software developed using compilers, IDE or even libraries need not
be released under GPL. But if only u use the source code of other apps to
write your amazing algorithm then obviously you will have to GPL it
> 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!.
This is not game to win or loose. All I want is "everyone should wake up
from the matrix world". Try to understand or atleast enlighten us if we are
wrong.
>
> 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.
Talented persons like you can quickly understand GPL preach others.
So please don't ignore reading GPL inspite of your busy schedule.
> 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.
GNU/Hurd is ready long back. I'm running it on my m/c. Not only me
Supreet and APenguinHead(Pankaj) also.
RMS didn't start kernel development first, unlike Linus. He started
with Emacs, GCC then ... and finally kernel. All this took this 10 yrs.
You are already running most of the apps written for GNU/Hurd over GNU/Linux.
While Linus started kernel first and he used all GNU/Hurd apps(developed over yrs)
for GNU/Linux. (even for compiling GNU/Linux kernel you need GCC)
I always admire Linus (and GNU/Linux) for his great work.
But not his(Linus) vision and ideas.
> (...ducking,running for cover as Anand Babu takes out his shotgun...)
LOL
--
��.���`�.��.->FIG is GNU (http://www.gnu.org)
The mailing list archives are available at
http://lists.linux-india.org/cgi-bin/wilma/linux-delhi/
