On Tuesday 11 July 2006 11:01, Dieter wrote: > > Many in the "Open Source" camp are opposed to the GPL approach. > They want the "freedom" to take open software and convert it to > closed software.
But is that what Open Source stands for? I usually consider ESR's The Cathedral and the Bazaar as the philosophy of the Open Source movement. It doesn't say anything about making the software proprietary. The fact that some people claim something in the name of something doesn't make that the original intent. > > We're more like OS in that we don't argue but just build the > > hardware.=20 Both FS and OS people will be able to use it, since > > the concept of=20 freedom that the former use does not apply to > > hardware, and because it=20 works just great. > > What concept of freedom does not apply to hardware? > > Hardware can be more difficult to modify than software, and making > copies costs more, but the right to do so is the same. You are right. IIRC RMS never worried about whether he had the RTL to the computers he was programming for (firmware is another thing); he considered that immutable. But you're right, it does apply. Lourens
pgpYU93IieQIn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
