--- Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > Not true. I'm very much in favor of a truly free > intellectual commons, and I'm very thankful for > the existence of code such as BSD and Apache. > But (L)GPLed code is neither open source nor > "free." That the FSF says otherwise cannot > change this fact.
Would you say that Linux is not free ? > > I do like some commercial products very much, and I > like the companies that make them to make profits > so that the products will continue to be improved. > I like coding for a living, and I do not want the > FSF and its licenses to succeed in its agenda, which > consists of wiping out all commercial software and > destroying decent jobs for programmers. > What could you say about Microsoft trying to destroy the concurrence ? For example Netscape ? A programmer can be paid even he makes free code. And these are other commercial ways : distribution & packaging services, on-line services... If you say that companies distributing free software are loosing money, look RedHat and consider : why is it not dead after years and years ? > On the other hand, I strongly support the notions > of fair use and the first sale doctrine, and I don't > buy copy protected software. > > As for lawyers: Hiring them is sometimes a necessary > > expense (for example, if you're negotiating a > contract). But I wouldn't say that I "like" using > them. > > Anything that's GPLed throws a "monkey wrench" into > the relevant market, and (if it's any good) > eventually destroys all competition. GCC is great example. > It's a mediocre compiler, but notably *better* compilers > the ones I need for some of the work I do -- are not > selling. > > GCC was one of the very first FSF projects. The > others, > as they progress, are beginning to have similar > effects > on the markets which they have invaded. The > progression > leads, inexorably, to the extinction of alternatives > and > the elimination of user choice. >> Note that closed sources are slowing development. > I disagree. In this case, qualify the time Linux has taken to become as today. Windows took 20 years and so. > > >> In short, Stallman urges programmers to sabotage > >> their employers' IP -- > >> by injecting GPLed code into it -- so that it > must > >> be given away. > Yes. And the purpose of the GPL is to poison the > well of truly free software that existed long before > Stallman founded the FSF. That ecology was balanced. > The GPL injects a "poison pill" designed to destroy > the commercial players, destroying the delicate > symbiosis between commercial and freely available software. It's not destruction, it's only the competition ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.fr
