Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:40:19 -0700 (MST) From: Jason Spencer <j@vastmind.org> To: Gregory Sutter <gsutter@zer0.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL rant number 31391 (was: Jordan Hubbard on Darwin) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011212342140.30848-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20001121131403.B30802@klapaucius.zer0.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Gregory Sutter wrote: >On 2000-11-21 13:54 -0500, Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com> wrote: >> software is almost free; you can download and use a fully functional >> version of it as long as you're willing to put up with advertisements >> during its use. Do we recognize nearly free software in any special way in >> this camp? > >Adware, especially closed-source adware, is no more free than the >latest cruft from Microsoft. It's just another form of commercial >software. > >Greg Well, whatever works. Qualcomm maintains a major POP server which is free and open-source. And they distribute Eudora which has three modes, one free, one with ads and one for a fee with no ads. The free version is the exact same binary--same guts, same bugfixes--minus a few features. And it's a damn good program. I have not seen anything comparable, free or not, on any platform. (I'm talking of the Macintosh version here.) So you can take your pick: live without a few (in this case fairly trivial) features and use it for free, donate your eyeballs and watch a few ads, or donate some cold hard cash and be done with it. FreeBSD and it's ilk stay alive through donation as well. In this case it's more through donation of time than money. But this sort of thing is only an option to some of us. As far as the availability of the source goes, no one but dorks like us really care if the source is available anyway--perhaps they should, but you've got to look at the big picture. We don't need to draw a line in the sand here. We all hate big brutish MS apps with their bluescreens and secrity holes, but that's just one end of the spectrum. Sure, I'd love it if it was all free and open--ready to mold at will--but we'll never get there if we become bigots about it. It's the same way with licences. If I were to write a nice bit of networking code, I'd be sure to slap a BSD-style licence on it. That's the least restrictive way of getting it out there. And everyone benefits. If I were to write say, a fancy MP3 jukebox thing that controls your playlist by clicking on thumnails of your CD collection, I'd GPL it. I wouldn't want someone to candy coat it and sell it to millions of assorted dupes out there. The GPL would assert my freedom to decide not to make money off of that code. (At the same time, if I got a bunch of graphic artists together and made a really great game, I'd probably try to sell it.) It all comes down to how you want to frame your freedom. Sure the GPL is kind of infective, so what. For the front-end, high up user level type stuff, that might be just the property you're looking for. It's kind of unfortunate that GNU tar is the best tool for the job since that's more foundational, but it's not really that big of a deal. -j. (ps. Okay you header freaks, I use Eudora for all of my mail except a few mailing lists :). The rest sits comfortably on my Mac laptop... one day I'd like to see FreeBSD running on hardware as nice as that. Before you start yapping, you'd need: on board SCSI and IDE, mature power management, a chip that doesn't burn my crotch, support for overlapping desktops at differing bit depths....) (pps. Uh-oh, you've got a Mac dork in your midst. Nahhh, all OSen suck. I've never met one that could suit all my needs, which is why I continue to use at least three a day--even if the one from Redmond is just for cash.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0011212342140.30848-100000>