Firefox market share bounces back 6709
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:11:02 -0600, Lin¿nut
No, I'm not. If anything, Ray was. The GPL makes no distinction about "making money", although it makes it practically impossible to do so from the code itself.
Yes they are, today. But this is NOT what the FSF's goals are.
I don't follow. You're saying that just because no software exists in other licenses, that means the GPL is superior? What about all that proprietary software that doesn't exist in open source? Does that mean the proprietary licenses are superior (using your logic)?
You're going to have to explain further. You're not making any sense.
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:48:25 -0600, Lin¿nut I see. To take an extreme example, if your interests were served by a group that was intent on doing something evil (note, i'm...
No, i'm not. Though I may be over-emphasizing it. My comments ARE what the FSF's goals are.
You're contradicting yourself. Copyright is included in Intellectual property rights.
Yes, because the FSF has not yet had it's way.
You're only looking at the original contributors. The GPL compels those that derive works from it and distribute their binaries to distribute source. Many times, this has been unwillingly.
But not if the FSF gets its way.
No, the FSF's goal is to disband intellectual property. However, that's not enough, because disbanding IP won't guarantee that people will publish their source, it only means they can't sue you for using theirs if you acquire it (say, by reverse engineering or some other means). What The FSF wants is to create a world where all software is "Free", and that can only be achieved by thwarting copyright.
If you don't believe this, you need to read more of the essays on intellectual property from RMS.
One really only need look no further than the Mission statement of the FSF:
"The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs."
Note that it doesn't say "Free Software", but rather "computer programs". In other words, ALL computer programs. Of course, you may think i'm reading too much into it, but let's look further:
Kier It's OK if you use it for a while and give it a chance. Pluses: * you can get things done pretty readily. It's actually easy to find some things...
"My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better."
His goal is to replace proprietary software, and make society "a better place". Lots of evil has been done in this world in the name of making society a better place, but let's not go into that.
Unfortunately, the FSF has moved to newer content Debt Management software, and many of the older essays are no longer on their site. There used to be one detailing the reasons for the creation of copyleft (in more detail than the current 'why copyleft'). It included his belief that Copyright was bad, but that it was a necessary evil to avhieve their goals. I've been trying t remember a unique phrase from the essays I read to do a search on it, but have been drawing a blank so far (there's way too much stuff out there to find it with generic terms).
I'm also not the only person that recognizes what the FSF wants to do. Sun's COO Jonathan Schwartz (Who's a lawyer, BTW) said this:
"The GPL is wrongly used as a way force developers to share their work because the creators have a hidden agenda of forcing a social model on the world"