--- Brett Glass brett@lariat.org 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