Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 01:49:55 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Greg Lehey" <grog@lemis.com> Cc: "Brian Raynes" <brian_raynes@dnr.state.ak.us>, <freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand Together" Message-ID: <001901c0e1d3$020b06c0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <20010521172345.A30256@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Lehey [mailto:grog@lemis.com] >Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 12:54 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Brian Raynes; freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand >Together" > > > >None. I've had enough of this thread. I just plain disagree with >you, OK? The GPL has weaknesses, agreed, but so has the BSD license. >I refuse to look on people who prefer the GPL as being evil to the >core. > Greg, knock it off, did I ever say that GPL is evil? I made it clear earlier that I can take the GPL, my problem is with the group that is surrounding it and what they are doing. I'm merely restating what GNU has already stated on their website. They have stated that they want GPL used in preference to any other license including LGPL, and that they want their stuff to be so functional and featureful that everybody will use it. Since their stuff carries the GPL that means by extraction that they want everything GPL. >> >> Um, well if that is the case then why didn't Bruce include us? > >You still don't know? I think I've told you three times. > You haven't told me or anyone the reason why once during this entire thread. More importantly, _Bruce_ hasn't posted the reason why anywhere on his site. The only thing I've seen is a link to a paragraph from him that is essentially saying that he would expect US to join with THEM. That's pretty much an assumption that there IS an US and a THEM, don't you think? >Do me a favour, will you? Point us to a photo of you so we can be >sure you're not Brett Glass in disguise. > That one's pretty funny, actually. :-) > >In other words "there are the Linux crowd, there are the *BSDs, who >don't even talk to each other". except that they happen to use a bunch of GPL software and include a Linuxulator in their product - no, that doesen't hold either. > My case stands. > If you so positive that GPL/BSD/whatever else unity is so necessary to beat Microsoft, then instead of me wasting my breath outlining why it's not, why don't you explain why it is? As a matter of fact, so far NO ONE has explained why unity is so necessary for this campaign - everyone has just seemed to assume that it is, without question. Well, that's pretty dumb, if your fighting a war, why waste resources supporting something (unity) that has no proven value as either a weapon or a defence? > >No. I consider this a feature, not a bug. A lot of us were turned >off by the vehement anti-Microsoft attitude in your book. Don't get Yes, I know and one of the results of that was the creation of Chapter 10 and the transferring of all advocacy in the book into that Chapter, I think you would find the current version pretty neutral in all other chapters. Certainly Poul Hennings did, as he was pretty mad about the bias first time round, but he liked the revised version that went to press. >me wrong, I'm certainly not in favour of Microsoft. Catch me in >private for confirmation of that. But it has no place in my book, and >putting it there would turn off a number of people off FreeBSD. > And turn on others. There's two sides to any coin. In any case, as I explain, it's impossible to fully understand the commitment of BSD without understanding the anti-Microsoft thread. Besides that, Microsoft has no problem being vehemently anti-Open Source and I don't see that anyone using Microsoft software has stopped using it because of _that_. I considered the argument that being anti-anyone would turn off someone, and rejected it because there's too much evidence that it makes absolutely no difference. I went to the trouble of PC'ing the book because mostly the core people that looked at it wanted that, but I still think that your all wrong about the bias thing and making a big stink over nothing. Certainly, some of the reviewers were totally the opposite, and LIKED the Advocacy chapter. So, who really knows either way? > >> By contrast, >> >> as more and more DIFFERENT groups adopt DIFFERENT licensing, and even >> stand independent of each other, all under the banner of Open >> Source, it's much harder to fight something like that. > >Fractionally. The terms "open source" and "free software" both >embrace GPL, BSDL and a whole lot of others. Ahhh - you would think that, wouldn't you. I do, and I think most BSD people do. Certainly, when BSD people talk about Open Source, that is what they are saying. But, I'm saying that my observation is that when the "leaders of the GPL" start talking about Open Source, they are talking about GPL _only_. > I don't think the >target audience would notice the difference. > Well, that's our problem. We are the ones that have to make the justification of why the BSD license and way of doing things is better than GPL. But, I also note that it's interesting that Microsoft has chosen in the latest speech to go after the GPL explicitly. Who knows if they will carry forward this campaign or if they are still feeling the waters for a strategy of attack. But, I predict that if they DO commence attacking Linux using this vector, that very soon the target audience WILL be made aware, by Microsoft, of the difference between GPL and BSDL and the others. I also think that after having studying how Microsoft has used FUD in the past, that the anti-GPL attack has many positives for it. The number one is that it's a way of attacking Linux without really coming out and saying that your attacking Linux. It also protects your Apple flank (and your own) from charges of hypocrisy, and also Microsoft has accepted that Open Source isn't going away, and would rather coexist with BSD than GPL. Just keep this in mind - by even publically acknowledging (as Ballmer did in January) that Linux is a competitor, in fact the number one competitor, Microsoft has instantly given a veneer of legitimacy to Open Source among the Windows diehards. This certaily has cost them significant sales short term, and they fought against doing this for at least 3 years. You cannot overestimate the importance of this - it shows that they now have proof that Linux has so damaged their sales that the sales damage caused by legitimizing them was outweighed by the importance of being able to attack Linux directly. The war has started. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001901c0e1d3$020b06c0$1401a8c0>