Alexandre Oliva wrote:
For me it means using/reusing/improving freely-available, well-tested code in all possible situations.And where did you get this idea that this is what Free (and|or) Open Source Software are about?That's what I say it is about.I.e., you start out by assuming that there aren't differences between these movements, and then conclude from this that they're the same. Sounds like circular logic to me.
I know there are differences: OSS exists to counter the harm that GPL fanatics cause. However that doesn't eliminate the situation that some useful software is covered by the GPL and still usable in some situations. So that doesn't mean I need to choose only one side or the other.
The lack of freedom comes when the GPL is involved with any other code, a situation you seem to ignore.The only cases of combinations for which the GPL refrains from granting permission for distribution are those involving code under licenses that are less permissive than the GPL, in at least one aspect. Why do you insist that the GPL is at fault for that?
Because the work-as-a-whole provision was obviously added specifically to cause this denial of freedom. The other OSS licenses have no such clause. For example, zfs will go from OpenSolaris to freebsd, and OS X, demonstrating actual freedom.
It is only difficult to escape when equal/better choices don't exist.'fraid you've never tried to move to a superior Free Software platform, away from an application that uses a proprietary format, that nobody else supports and yet you've stored years of data in it,Red Herring. It's not necessary to do that.Please look up 'red herring'. I provided an example that directly contradicts your claim. How can you regard that as a distraction?
There are any number of ways to do things wrong. Yes, you posted one of them. You can make mistakes with free software at least as easily as proprietary versions. It doesn't relate to any point.
I do notice the differenceGood. Then you acknowledge that the values behind the FS and OSS movements are different, and that they are often at odds with each other?
Yes. That has nothing to do with what I want or what I think most of the world wants. You might notice that the vast majority of software in use today is neither GPL'd nor OSS, so how can you claim that either has done a particularly good job the last few decades or insist that I join one or the other movement?
hence I know that the GPL is the one that most often does not permitAgain, this is a distraction, since the GPL is largely adopted and promoted by both movements.
No, its not a distraction. Its restrictions are one of the reasons such a small percentage of software in use is FOSS.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
