Hi sandip,
>
> 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
> .................................................. "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
Precisely,you said it all..........Freedom with no strings attached is the Free
BSD License!!!
That is the difference between BSD and GPL............BSD talks of "freedom with
no strings attached"(FWNSA).........but GPL talks of "freedom with
responsibility"...which one is better is again your choice.
Although BSD was very good and had FWNSA ,where is it now??It was/is the base of
all the proprietary unix derivatives. It is because of FWNSA that a good system
like BSD was lost .Do you want the same thing repeated with linux?? The irony
with BSD is that although it wanted to be free software , it couldn't contribute
into the development of Freesoftware only because of the wrong license !! The
tragedy is that sometimes it is basically the original free BSD version
redistributed as a proprietary product.Happy to hear that??
Secondly,if BSD is FWNSA then why didn't we have IBSDUG-D than ILUG-D?? It is
basically because of the reason which somebody summarized long
back......."Responsibility is the price for freedom".
Don't stretch words too far ............ it can result in a word game..
If BSD is FWNSA then why is it a License??By definition a license is some kind of
restriction..........
One of the reasons BSD was licensed was the recognition of origins of the
software(but mind you no protection of any work).disclaimer, copyright notice
etc............
>
> Take the ideal RMS world. Everybody is using GPL stuff - the compilers, the IDE,
>
> the package, the whole stuff. And your company
> hits...............................................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!.
If you do not believe in a win - win situation and believe in the win-lose
concept then do not put your project under GPL..........but then do not complain
if you don't get the benefits and publicity which you get when you are under GPL.
What do you want to patent it for??Money /fame??.........both of which you get
thro' GPL too........and if it for a reason like restricting others then
..........I don't know what is the whole discussion about,because as far as I
understand all such debates are not started just because we do not have anything
else to do....... ..but a better reason which is ....to find a way in which our
individualistic freedom is maintained not by restricting others but creating a
win-win situation thro' which everybody benefits without any compromise.
If you want I can give you a lot of reasons why GPL is not only good from
individualistic perspective but from technological prespective too.
>
>
> 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,
Before *SRONGLY* believing anything make sure that you clearly distinguish between
Linus and the Bsd folks.............You introduced BSD in discussion for a point
completely off-topic.......but now that you have introduced it....atleast don't
mix Linus , BSD etc...............All three RMS,Linus and especially BSD
....stand for different points...........
>
> 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.
No it would have been IBSDUG-D or IMSUG-D..........if Linux had n't been
GPLed.........because then the two option would have been : 1. Put linux under BSD
type license in which case there would have been propietary Linux derivatives and
linux would have been in disguise with some propreitary name(s) like BSD has
been.............then we would have stood for nothing.......
2. Make linux propreitary which would be the same as MS..........and so you would
have stood for some MS like system.
Only because of GPL we are here.
> 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.
There is a difference between coordination and monopoly.............if you
coordinate you are flexible to ideas and create a flexible system.............if
you are monopolistic you have aversion to most ideas without proper explaination
......just because they are not yours.
>
>
> 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?
Agreed......but the commander should have a clear vision as to who what you want
and who you are with.............
you put Linux under GPL and so it is free software .........but paradoxically you
encourage proprietary stuff(even that is ok if you believe in it),but why do you
say that free software is not commercial...........
If you change tracks or are confused ,does that mean the whole army suffers??
>
>
> 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.
Again , you say it is more practical..........without explaining.......
Please,please explain in what way ??Just saying practical doesn't explain
practicality...............It is like saying "I am right ,I know it.......so just
follow me...."
Secondly, you yourself say or support that GPL is more
practical...............that is what I am also trying to say!!! If it is more
practical then what is the problem............stick to it !!! If you agree with
GPL then what is the point you are trying to make????????????
Good points you raised.........but didn't tell about the other points like what
happens if major chunk of linux becomes proprietary.
> Please note that I never intended flaming you...............I think that we
> are having a mind clearing discussion.....and understanding the concepts more
> clearly thro' discussions.......
> Mridul.
>
>
> 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/
The mailing list archives are available at
http://lists.linux-india.org/cgi-bin/wilma/linux-delhi/
