Oh Brother
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Feb 02, 2007 4:53 PM EDT |
OK, I despise the microvell deal, but actions like this just go to further the opinion of some that the FSF and its notables believe in freedom ... for everyone to believe as they do. How in the world can you prevent someone from using GPL'd code in accordance with the GPL? By releasing it under the GPL you have lost that IP right as long as they abide by the GPL. The only person who could conceivably make any kind of action would be Linus as he holds the trademark for the linux name, and he wont. You want to change the GPL to prevent further cases like this fine. You want to refuse them the right to distribute IAW the GPL and Mr. Moglen better be a magician as well as a lawyer, because that one could easily land in court. Here at LXer we have beaten the "sprirt" issue to death and beyond and I think we all agree that if that particular argument went to court it would hit the floor with a resounding thump without so much as a twitch. Leave any actions to the GPL3 and keep up the community pressure on Novell. This idea about restricting them should have been still born though |
| jimf Feb 02, 2007 5:51 PM EDT |
Don'cha just love people who just make up new rules as they please. Next a special clause that you can't have dealings with MS.... What the heck are the people at FSF thinking. I guess they really aren't. Or maybe, RMS really has gone off the deep end. |
| cjcox Feb 02, 2007 6:48 PM EDT |
What is at issue is that Novell believes that patents are a present reality (and they are) and some companies might use their patents against corporations in attempt to force them to use their proprietary software (in a SCO like fashion). Therefore Novell attempted to make a deal to protect their clients from the patent wielding machine that is Microsoft. I know, I know... Linux doesn't violate any patents. But wait... did I see your child swinging on your swingset?? Did she put her legs out when moving forward and curl them back when going backwards? Oops.. patent violation. Ok... you BELIEVE you are safe and will never be sued... I mean it's not like they would win even if they did sue. So... let's say they sue. Your life is now lived in the media spotlight and for the next several months, if not years, you prepare for legal battle while you prove your case (as obvious as it is). Surely a judge would throw it out? Right? Are you sure? Really, really sure? Still think you're safe without patent protection? Mr. Moglen says you're perfectly safe. Shame he doesn't have the ability to defend everyone in court though. Mr. Moglen WANTS Novell to be in violation of GPLv2 section 7... a gross misinterpretation of that section: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. Since SUSE is free and under the GPL, it can be distributed for free. NOWHERE has Novell done anything or told anyone that they are prohibited from the distribution of the free parts of their version of Linux. HOWEVER, Novell does own technologies (Mr. Moglen being unaware of such things) outside of GNU/Linux. And sadly, some of those technologies are NOT under GPLv2 or any other free license for that matter. In fact, it is VERY likely that Microsoft is violating some of Novell's past patents (I say past patents, because ever since the SUSE acquisition, Novell isn't pursuing a patent arsenal... unlike other companies...e.g. Google). So Novell has agreed to pay Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft leading with Linux where applicable. Obviously, Novell can only be sure about their SUSE package, which is all free software... even the parts uniquely SUSE. As a part of the deal, customers of Novell will be shielded from patent suits by Microsoft surrounding their use of Linux technologies. Does Linux violate any patents? We say 'no', but we forget about the swing set above. The patent system in America is fundamentally broken. Mr. Moglen's approach of pretending it isn't there, or believing that blackmail is the answer to the patent problem is probably only going to push free software out of corporate markets (which apparently is just fine with the FSF and Mr. Moglen). Novell is NOT paying Microsoft in order to make their GPL'd software NOT freely distributable, but that is EXACTLY what Mr. Moglen and the FSF are saying. In summary, What is happening out of all this is that Novell is being punished for doing business with a company that owns patents. Last time I checked, Linux was VERY big in large corporations, some of which holding massive patent portfolios. So what do we do? I suppose we (as a free software community) could blackmail those corporations by preventing them from using Linux. Thus if you have patents or patent agreements, you would NOT be allowed to use Linux. This is effectively what Mr. Moglen wants and desires. If this is what you believe is the right strategy for free software and the right solution to the patent problem, then you should throw your full support being Mr. Moglen and at the same time start nailing Novell to the crucifix (as the first example of our righteous crusade). If Mr. Moglen is right, Novell is just the beginning of large corporations that MUST be punished or at least restricted from Linux use. If you own patents, I'd be just a bit wary of what the FSF is trying to do right now. And all the while, the warped patent system continues on... and Microsoft's market share benefits as the FSF becomes their biggest weapon against Linux in the enterprise. Which may have been Microsoft's intent all along... and probably why Novell didn't have any problem getting Microsoft to agree on this deal. Also: Novell has stated publicly, many times that if they are in violation of GPLv2 with their deal, that they will do whatever it takes to stay in compliance with the license. Even so far as calling the whole thing off. But there are some people that DON'T want you to hear about that. |
| jsusanka Feb 02, 2007 7:10 PM EDT |
Part of me really wants them to take action against novell - and another part could really care less because I don't use either company's software and have no desire to. The part that really pisses me of is that this deal was not needed and I blame novell for that since they admitted they took the initiative because ron has some good old boy ties in microsoft. what really really pisses me off is that they thought their customers needed protection without asking their customers or the developers that actually make the product that they are building their business on. so to me it was a very stupid move on novell's part. they did not need to make this deal and they deserve anything that comes to them as a result in my book. |
| swbrown Feb 02, 2007 11:03 PM EDT |
The Reuters article attempted to 'sex up' old news to get some reads, there's nothing new except some bad reporting. See here for clarification: http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6837365670.html |
| pastored Feb 02, 2007 11:54 PM EDT |
I guess I don't get it. There is NOTHING stopping Microsoft from releasing their OWN VERSION of Linux. GPL says that *anyone* can use the code, as long as they make the changes free. And they wouldn't even have to use the Linux kernel; they could borrow a page from Apple and use a BSD at the heart; or even funnier, the Hurd microkernel. At any rate, these open source licenses cannot prevent MS from releasing their own take on Linux. I am convinced that if MS ever really wants to "kill" Linux, they should co-opt it, and make it their own. They could easily created a Linux kernel based system, and then add a proprietary API layer for hardware support. That way, they wouldn't be charging for Microsoft Linux per se; they'd be charging for their proprietary hardware support layer, and for the support structure they'd offer. Do I think they'll actually do this? Not any time soon--- but the writing is on the wall, and if MS can figure out how to move people's mindsets from computers as appliances to COMPUTING as a UTILITY (like electricity or cable television), they'll do that in a flash. |
| Libervis Feb 03, 2007 3:44 AM EDT |
Despite what jimf would like you to believe (really jimf, you can do better than buy everything that makes FSF look bad) this article seems to be more FUD by reuters itself (even if unintentional) than real news. In fact there is no news here at all. GPLv3 due in March may very well prevent deals like this in the future which *may* prevent Novell from using new versions of GNU software (not Linux kernel), but we knew that all along. |
| jdixon Feb 03, 2007 6:22 AM EDT |
> In fact there is no news here at all. Agreed. I started to read the article, realized it wasn't making much sense, then look to see it was by Rueters. I stopped reading at that point. :) |
| azerthoth Feb 03, 2007 9:43 AM EDT |
Ostriches stick their head in the sand to ignore what they find disagreeable. Just because you question the source does not make the information passed any less valid. Even a pig turns up a pearl once in awhile. |
| jimf Feb 03, 2007 10:39 AM EDT |
> Despite what jimf would like you to believe I don't really care what you believe. You are, obviously, entitled to believe what you want, but, RMS is the one who sets himself up as the interpreter of all that is GPL, and many of you seem to follow his proclamations blindly. That's the definition of a cult. If you can't see that, it's your problem, not mine. What I'm seeing is that opposition to GPLv3, the Novell Deal, or anything else that RMS proclaims to be a threat provokes a typical GNU response. the whole HERD panics and pushes the rest into the river to be eaten by the crocs.... |
| Libervis Feb 03, 2007 11:10 AM EDT |
Well jimf, that's your usual rhetoric so I don't have much to say to it. We've been through it and came out unconvinced on both sides, so be it. :) But just to update you on my thinking, I am in agreement with the World Domination 201 document and conclusions, despite being a "Free Software" guy. I share the same goals, but not necessarily absolutely the same method. So much for being in the "herd" of the blind. I still believe GPLv3 to be a good thing though. It's simple. If you want to play with us and enjoy the benefits we offer, play by our rules. Otherwise don't play. When someone enters our game and tries to circumvent those rules, then that requires action. FSF is the one responsible for those rules (other players choose to follow them voluntarily, not because FSF said they had to) and seeing that these rules are being circumvented they patch up the holes. Nothing spectacular there. No conspiracy or whatever you believe FSF to be. And besides, birds on branches are already singing that jimf is the resident FSF basher on LXer. Nothing new, let's move along. Thanks. |
| jimf Feb 03, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
> jimf is the resident FSF basher Lol, talk about retoric. Now repeat the credo Libervis, 'RMS is the only true prophet and Moglen is his mouthpiece'. |
| Abe Feb 03, 2007 1:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:Lol, talk about retoric. Now repeat the credo Libervis, 'RMS is the only true prophet and Moglen is his mouthpiece'.I think I had enough of your silly retoric. Like Libervis said, you don't agree with the GPL or what RMS or Moglen say, you don't have to play. Stick to the rules or get out. Quoting:RMS is the one who sets himself up as the interpreter of all that is GPL,Well well, you do know that RMS is one who wrote the GPL, don't you? SO, he is entitled and, actually it is his Prerogative. If you are not an active code contributor, you shouldn't really count. You can present your opinion as much as you want, that doesn't matter because you really don't count at all. Quoting:and many of you seem to follow his proclamations blindly. That's the definition of a cult. If you can't see that, it's your problem, not mine.You are WRONG. We agree with the GPL because of our full knowledge and understand of what the GPL is all about. You, and it is becoming obvious, don't understand what it stands for or for some reason you don't like it. May be some greed lingering inside you, or something that the GPL3 will prevent you from doing, I am not sure. But the bottom line is, if you don't like, you don't have to adopt it. If some developers don't like it, they don't have to adopt it either. It is that simple. End of discussion. Comprendo!? Now, are you with us or against us??? Duh, I knew that. |
| jimf Feb 03, 2007 1:37 PM EDT |
> Duh, I knew that Duh Indeed. So much for any 'free' or 'open'... |
| Abe Feb 03, 2007 1:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:So much for any 'free' or 'open'...Free and Open don't entitle you to spit in a well that other drink from. |
| azerthoth Feb 03, 2007 1:56 PM EDT |
Darn and here I thought a few people might be more open minded, guess I was wrong. You all are doing a great job of proving jimf's point. That you believe in freedom ... as long as everyone agrees unquestioningly in the exact same interpretation of that freedom. I have to agree that too with jimf that for people who value freedom there seem to be an awfull lot of lock steppers around here. I agree that RMS should know what he intended to say, but as has been pointed out that is not what he actually DID say when he wrote the GPL. I'll argue and agree that the intent was there from the beginning, but guess what the road to hell is paved with intention especially when it isnt spelled out. He meant it, but did not say it. Lock step with that, wrap your heads around it. There is nothing to prevent any other distro from doing the exact same thing and it IS NOT punishable under law. They cant restrict or otherwise take action against Novell legally. Community pressure is it, and that needs to be kept up with. What happens when the GPL3 comes around remains to be seen. I have my suspicions but as its not finalized yet, who can say. Until that time however, as despicable as it is, Novell is legal. |
| Abe Feb 03, 2007 1:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:Darn and here I thought a few people might be more open minded, guess I was wrong. You all are doing a great job of proving jimf's point....there seem to be an awfull lot of lock steppers around hereYou don't seem to understand, this is the GPL we are talking about not BSD license. The GPL comes with conditions if you haven't notice. If you take, you must give back is one of them. Novell drank from the well and putting back piss as their contribution. How do you like that? Absolute Freedom leads to chaos, special restrictions are necessary to protect it. Quoting:I agree that RMS should know what he intended to say, but as has been pointed out that is not what he actually DID say when he wrote the GPL.RMS & Moglen were the first who said that Novell is not in violation of the GPL. It was a loophole which Novell-MS agreement opened their eyes to see it. That is why they are working on GPL3. Freedom comes with rules that are necessary to protect it. Without these rules, we will not have any Freedom. |
| bigg Feb 03, 2007 2:13 PM EDT |
> Well well, you do know that RMS is one who wrote the GPL, don't you? SO, he is entitled and, actually it is his Prerogative. I've got to disagree there. He *wrote* the GPL, but his *interpretation* of the GPL is no more important that Steve Ballmer's interpretation. The only interpretation that matters is a court. He said something that software developers agreed with, and they used his license, but his opinion is largely meaningless after the fact. |
| swbrown Feb 03, 2007 2:14 PM EDT |
> Ostriches stick their head in the sand to ignore what they find disagreeable. Just because you question the source does not make the information passed any less valid How many times are you willing to look for the wolf when wolf is cried? |
| jimf Feb 03, 2007 2:34 PM EDT |
> an awfull lot of lock steppers around here Well, I really could care less about that, 'except' that, with that kind of attitude, they're driving away a substantial group who strongly support GPLv2 and the whole open source concept. Almost as though they were trying to accomplish that... At this rate the only ones who will be left supporting FSF will be the lock steppers. |
| bigg Feb 03, 2007 2:41 PM EDT |
> At this rate the only ones who will be left supporting FSF will be the lock steppers. I question how relevant FSF is now. I think most of them probably are already lock steppers. |
| jdixon Feb 03, 2007 5:45 PM EDT |
> ...Just because you question the source does not make the information passed any less valid. I don't question the source. I know the source, and I know that thy know absolutely nothing about the subject they claim to be discussing. And knowing their past history, even the information they present as fact is suspect. I'll seek my information from other sources. As for the Novell/Microsoft agreement, I've made my position on that clear in the past. I don't trust Microsoft, and I won't use Novell products, but from a business viewpoint Novell made a legal and expedient agreement. If Novell was the only Linux provider, I'd have problems with the agreement, but fortuantely for us they're not. |
| Libervis Feb 03, 2007 6:04 PM EDT |
Quoting: Well, I really could care less about that, 'except' that, with that kind of attitude, they're driving away a substantial group who strongly support GPLv2 and the whole open source concept. Just what kind of attitude are you talking about? You constantly try to paint everyone who says anything good about GPLv3 or FSF as cultist blind followers and no matter how much we try to disprove that you don't correct yourself one bit and just continue on and on with your rhetoric and FUD. Is your mind really *that* locked down into your own perspective that you just can't possibly grasp the possibility of you being wrong in your holy judgment of someone else? It's like you set a picture in your mind that "those guys are blind cultists" and are now completely an utterly incapable to change this picture no matter what. I can tell you I don't follow FSF 100% and I am still going to be called a blind follower of the FSF simply because I agree with GPLv3. Now who is trying to force whose opinion here?! What am I supposed to say to earn your approval? Is there even such a thing considering that I have already been judged in your mind? You just wont listen. You just wont even try to understand the perspective of those who you target. You are hopeless! Therefore I don't hope your response will be any better than your previous ones, more spin, rhetoric and FUD. Well thank you, you at least keep the flames going on LXer. It'd be such a boring place without you. Sigh. |
| swbrown Feb 03, 2007 6:04 PM EDT |
> I question how relevant FSF is now Pretty damn relevant considering how many comments FSF stories generate. :) |
| jimf Feb 03, 2007 6:13 PM EDT |
> Pretty damn relevant Well, at least controversial... |
| Abe Feb 04, 2007 5:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:You are hopeless!Well said Libervis. You explained exactly what I think of Jimf's responses. Whether he is naive or doing it in on purpose, so far I couldn't tell. Quoting:but his *interpretation* of the GPL is no more important that Steve Ballmer's interpretation.Bigg Your statement is baseless since you haven't explained how his *interpretation* is different, would you care to do that? It would be enlightening for many of us.!!! |
| bigg Feb 04, 2007 8:11 AM EDT |
What I said is that his interpretation doesn't mean anything. He wrote a license, and if developers like that license, they can use it. He could think a GPL user is violating all that is holy, but only a court's opinion on that matters. |
| jimf Feb 04, 2007 9:09 AM EDT |
Clueless, flames? well that's an interesting way to discount what you don't want to hear. RMS thought up his concept of the 4 user freedoms and eventually implemented that in the GPL license. With the advent of GPLv2, that has become pretty much the high standard for free software. I shouldn't have to, but guess I'd better, point out that the '4 freedoms' are a 'philosophical' concept and that GPLv2 is the current contract that is enforceable under the law. FSF was set up by RMS to enforce the legal aspects of the GPL. All that is hunky dory, and under the shelter of the GPLv2 contract, free software, and especially Linux has prospered. I have no disagreement with the GPLv2 contract, or, with the 'four freedoms' as a 'philosophical' concept. But that's where I see the problem begins. RMS has set himself up as the sole interpreter of the '4 freedoms'. He has, for all practical purposes, formed a cult of believers. He is the President (apparently for life) of the FSF... In other words whatever RMS says or 'interprets' the 4 freedoms to be, gets thrown into GPL regardless of its effectiveness or even relevance. You're saying 'Oh no! RMS would never do that!' , but, if it looks like a duck, and, acts like a duck.... I'm as much against DRM as anyone here. I simply don't believe that the DRM restrictions issue can be successfully fought in a GPL contract. It will in my view do more to hurt free software than to curb the problem. I also see that censoring Novell, and by association, the whole SuSe community for doing something that is perfectly legal under the current GPLv2 license. I wouldn't have advised the deal. I certainly don't like, or trust MS, but, as you'd say, it's within the 'rules'. Overall, RMS and 'his' FSF have pretty much lost most of there creditability, at least in my eyes, and, I don't think I'm alone. There is a very good reason that the Constitution divides church and state. I'm of the opinion that that needs to be applied between RMS and the FSF if that's to (re)gain it's credibility. Now, If you guys still think I'm 'clueless', or, opposed to software freedom, or, just don't think I belong in your cult, so be it. Other than being pretty addicted to Linux, I have no vested interest here. |
| Abe Feb 04, 2007 9:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:What I said is that his interpretation doesn't mean anythingSorry, my mistake, I thought you said developers had a different interpretation. Please blame it on old age. But on the contrary, his interpretation is what counts because he wrote the GPL, he knows what was the GPL intent and purpose. That is why he is in the process of changing it to make his interpretation clear and understandable by everyone, including the courts. Quoting:He could think a GPL user is violating all that is holy, but only a court's opinion on that mattersLet's not go with what he thinks and go with what he says. For what he thinks could depend on each individual's interpretation. Both RMS & Moglen openly said that Novell is not in violation of the GPL2 letter. And it is certainly absolutely true that the courts' interpretation is what counts, but, we need to understand that this is exactly why GPL2 is being revised in GPL3. But some people are objecting to doing that before they even see the draft which hasn't been released yet. If some developers don't see Novell-MS contract a threat; RMS, Moglen & many others think otherwise. RMS has the full right to do whatever he feel is appropriate to circumvent any further such contracts. Who will adopt GPL3 and who doesn't, that is something we shall see when it is released for comments and feedbacks. |
| Abe Feb 04, 2007 10:01 AM EDT |
Quoting:Interesting way to discount what you don't want to hear. He has, for all practical purposes, formed a cult of believers.Just because we strongly disagree with your points doesn't mean we are a cult. It is obvious that it is you who doesn't want to hear what you don't like. Stop this silly senseless labeling. Quoting:Other than being pretty addicted to Linux, I have no vested interest here.Well you haven't demonstrated to us what harm the GPL3 going to bring to you and many others. You keep claiming that developers "will" not adopt GPL3 license, but all indication proves otherwise. Samba declaring their support and intent to adopt it is one example. Linus has some issues with it but the Linux kernel developers haven't made a final decision, when they see the draft or final version, they might decide otherwise. You keep knocking RMS & FSF. You don't like what RMS and FSF are doing, that is your problem. You and others who don't want RMS to be president, can become members to voice your opinion and vote to even prevent RMS from being elected. I don't think there is anything that would prevent you from doing just that. Act on it. Final thought On this issue, I happen to agree with RMS, Moglen & FSF that the Novel-MS deal is harmful and damaging to FOSS in general and to other than Suse distributors. Yes, some people don't agree with me, but to me, Novell-MS deal doesn't bring noticeable benefit to FOSS, so why have it. May be Novell will gain from it, but in my opinion, this gain on the account of others is not justified. Novell might have desperately needed this contract, but, in my opinion, Suse, which used to be my favorite distro but no more, is not that important to sacrifice FOSS for the sake of Novell. |
| jimf Feb 04, 2007 10:22 AM EDT |
> It is obvious that it is you who doesn't want to hear what you don't like. Well, I hear what you're 'saying', It simply doesn't make much sense. We've both said where we stand. At this point I'm only answering to be polite, but really discounting you as much as you are me. Not much of a logical discussion is possible really ;-) |
| tuxchick Feb 04, 2007 11:02 AM EDT |
Pah. jimf is wrong wrong WRONG. Purely logical. And right! I win I win I win! :D seriously jimf, you may be right about the FSF taking the wrong path. I take issue with your continual categorization of people who support the FSF or RMS as cultists, lock-steppers, and other uncomplimentary terms. There's no call for that; it's unfair and insulting. |
| jimf Feb 04, 2007 11:10 AM EDT |
> FSF or RMS as cultists So make up your own definition. I'm from the generation that invented the damned things, and I'm just calling it as I see it. |
| tuxchick Feb 04, 2007 11:45 AM EDT |
Try meditating on the face of our Beloved Leader and Prophet for a couple of hours, that'll clear your head. :) |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 04, 2007 11:55 AM EDT |
I would just like to say that this thread is my entertainment for today... and so far its working..;-) |
| Libervis Feb 04, 2007 1:27 PM EDT |
I'm with Abe here, obviously, and on the Novell-MS deal I'd just like to add that besides it being not so incredibly good for the FOSS community it potentially detracts from it by allowing MS to stir some legal FUD on our expense, even if it isn't working so well. As for Jimf, tuxchick has a point. Remember windowsrefund? As far as I know he was banned from these forums because he was insulting much in the similar way Jimf is here, because yes it is quite insulting to be called a blind sheep for disagreeing with you. If the discussion was kept without these, then we could have just peacefully ended it in disagreement. But when you go around insulting this is becoming much more difficult. Readers without as much background in these issues may actually buy your classifications and hence agree with your insults. Can you blame us for being so defensive then? Let's just keep it clean and cool and please let's not jump at every freaking opportunity to blackpaint someone we don't agree with. Thanks |
| jimf Feb 04, 2007 2:22 PM EDT |
> it is quite insulting to be called a blind sheep for disagreeing with you. Yeah, well it's not a complement to be called clueless either, kinda 'the pot calling the kettle black' ;-) As far as the comparision with that 'other person', I think you're way out of line. I didn't troll, and I find it 'seriously' insulting to have you insinuate that... Just because you don't agree with me is no reason for that kind of slam... A new low Libervis. |
| tuxchick Feb 04, 2007 2:57 PM EDT |
Getting back to the OP, it does seem that the FSF is taking the Novell-Microsoft deal very seriously, and they want to torpedo it. Do we agree on that? I have no disagreement with anyone who says the deal is a shoddy underhanded attempt to attack Linux with patent threats. That's quite evident to anyone with the patience to sift the reams of double-talk spewed forth by both Novell and MS. Whether the attacks will succeed is a wide-open question. I don't think they will. I think their Cunning Evil Plot is more like a Desperate Flail. It seems a large leap from "GPL2 left this tiny loophole that MS exploited, and Novell is 'tards for being party to it, and GPL3 will close the loophole" to "we the people want the deal killed dead dead dead." That's the part I don't get. |
| Libervis Feb 04, 2007 3:15 PM EDT |
Jimf, read back. I didn't call you clueless. It was "hopeless" and that's a whole different word with a whole different meaning. It means that I am losing all hope of you actually cutting some slack to those you disagree with and stopping with your rhetoric and yes.. insults. Also I didn't say you trolled. I didn't wholesale compare you with w3f, just your constant naming of us as blind followers being insulting much the same way w3f was being insulting in his not-so-friendly rants against those who he saw as ignorant towards "freedoms 0-3". So it wasn't a low blow from my part nor was it intended as such. In fact, just by claiming that I am kicking you with a "new" low blow is quite a low blow from you. ;) But sorry man, my intentions are not to war on you, but to at least try, hopefully, to have you see that things may not be all that simple as you see them, that just because someone happens to agree with RMS or FSF doesn't mean he is automatically a blind follower (which implies we are incapable of reasoning for ourselves and then choosing who to follow and who to agree with). You certainly have some people that you mostly agree with and possibly even admire. What would it be like if I called you a blind follower of those people? Can't you see what I'm getting at here? |
| swbrown Feb 04, 2007 5:47 PM EDT |
> It seems a large leap from "GPL2 left this tiny loophole that MS exploited, and Novell is 'tards for being party to it, and GPL3 will close the loophole" to "we the people want the deal killed dead dead dead." That's the part I don't get. Is there a major GPLed project out there, outside of Novell (especially outside of Ximian), that has come out and said they want the deal to stay? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!