Free software is dead.

[Rjack]

It appears that the Free Software Foundation is rapidly succeeding
in killing off "Free Software". Alan McKenzie and Pamela Jones are
going to have to find some other nutty anti-capitalist theme to
promote.

"The path forward is open source, not free software. Sometimes that
openness will mean embracing Microsoft in order to meet a customer's
needs. After all, fierce partisanship and an unwillingness to
compromise in software accomplishes is just as pointless, distasteful,
and useless as it is in government.

Free software has lost. Open source has won. We're all the better for it."

September 25, 2009 10:42 AM PDT
Free software is dead. Long live open source
by Matt Asay
http://news.cnet.com/openroad/

Sincerely,
Rjack

[Moshe Goldfarb]

Post by Rjack
It appears that the Free Software Foundation is rapidly succeeding
in killing off "Free Software". Alan McKenzie and Pamela Jones are
going to have to find some other nutty anti-capitalist theme to
promote.
"The path forward is open source, not free software. Sometimes that
openness will mean embracing Microsoft in order to meet a customer's
needs. After all, fierce partisanship and an unwillingness to
compromise in software accomplishes is just as pointless, distasteful,
and useless as it is in government.
Free software has lost. Open source has won. We're all the better for it."
September 25, 2009 10:42 AM PDT
Free software is dead. Long live open source
by Matt Asay
http://news.cnet.com/openroad/
Sincerely,
Rjack

PJ and Schestowitz should combine resources.

With her brains, and Schesotiwtz's free University Internet SPAM
pipeline, they could make one hell of a low cost SPAMMING
machine!

[Adam]

So what is the new Michael Moore film like ?
Anyone seen it ?

[7]

I

Proprietory software is dead.


Google is thwacking micoshaft big time.

Google (a Linux company) share trading bigger than Micoshaft Corporation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average $1.6 billion worth of shares trade in Google every day.
Micoshaft just around $1.5 billion.
The core of google corporation is built with Free software
and its smacking down micoshaft which is a paytard company.

What happened?

Do micoshaft share holders all now come with a small pepe?

Google seems to keep one larger than a canoe in their trousers!

Is this the end of micoshaft?

There is no hope for micoshaft to catch Google with share trading volume.

Micoshaft will crumble.

In terms of trading volume and popularity, google is bigger and more popular
with millionairs, banks and trading houses.

And now the stock exchanges around the globe switch to using Linux
because Linux servers are better at mission critical tasks
than crash prone windummy servers.

[Azz Pizz]

Post by Rjack
It appears that the Free Software Foundation is rapidly succeeding
in killing off "Free Software".

I was extremely unhappy when in the GPLv3 drafting process Stallman's
idea of banning "trusted" computing and DRM was canned in favor of Big
Business.

And was even more unhappy when they justified it with this:

(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DRMProhibited)

"As usual, the GNU GPL does not restrict what people do in software, it
just stops them from restricting others."


Then again, Linux is all Big Business now, the same NSA of the recent
(and past) spying scandals is involved in the development process,
billions of dollars flow between companies without any pay to the
developers, Linus Torvalds actually supports DRM and TC in Linux, TC
support is in the kernel (along with a FSF approval sticker), and it's no
longer about individual freedom, volunteer work, or do-it-yourself
initiatives, just $$$.


Somebody has to come along, take portions of BSD-licensed material create
a new UNIX-like OS, and lock it in as free from government and corporate
influence despite the source being available.

[Rjack]

Post by Azz Pizz

Post by Rjack
It appears that the Free Software Foundation is rapidly
succeeding in killing off "Free Software".

I was extremely unhappy when in the GPLv3 drafting process
Stallman's idea of banning "trusted" computing and DRM was canned
in favor of Big Business.
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DRMProhibited)
"As usual, the GNU GPL does not restrict what people do in
software, it just stops them from restricting others."
Then again, Linux is all Big Business now, the same NSA of the
recent (and past) spying scandals is involved in the development
process, billions of dollars flow between companies without any pay
to the developers, Linus Torvalds actually supports DRM and TC in
Linux, TC support is in the kernel (along with a FSF approval
sticker), and it's no longer about individual freedom, volunteer
work, or do-it-yourself initiatives, just $$$.

You've got *real* individual freedom right now! Write your software,
and then place it under your pillow at night. No big corporation
will ever steal your code -- in fact they'll never even miss it.
You can wake up every morning and peruse it like King Midas and his gold.

Post by Azz Pizz
Somebody has to come along, take portions of BSD-licensed material
create a new UNIX-like OS, and lock it in as free from government
and corporate influence despite the source being available.

Why do you want to take control of another author's BSD licensed code?
The BSD author has already freely offered it to anyone who chooses to
use it. Only anti-capitalist GPL control freaks want to control other
author's source code.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

[Azz Pizz]

Post by Rjack
Why do you want to take control of another author's BSD licensed code?
The BSD author has already freely offered it to anyone who chooses to
use it. Only anti-capitalist GPL control freaks want to control other
author's source code.

Because if it's integrated into a 100% hobby project, completely banning
government and special interest involvement in the development process, the
author will have done good for the 100% hobby project people too.

[Rui Maciel]

Post by Rjack
Why do you want to take control of another author's BSD licensed code?
The BSD author has already freely offered it to anyone who chooses to
use it. Only anti-capitalist GPL control freaks want to control other
author's source code.

The funny thing is that quite a few companies enjoy picking up BSD-licensed software, include it in their
software and proceed to act as if it was written by the company itself. That is also the case with GPL
software but thankfully, as soon as the jig is up, the courts quickly force the offending companies to
respect their copyright agreement.

So no, you got it backwards.


Rui Maciel

[Rjack]

Post by Rui Maciel

Post by Rjack
Why do you want to take control of another author's BSD licensed
code? The BSD author has already freely offered it to anyone who
chooses to use it. Only anti-capitalist GPL control freaks want
to control other author's source code.

The funny thing is that quite a few companies enjoy picking up
BSD-licensed software, include it in their software and proceed to
act as if it was written by the company itself.

That's the intent of the BSD license -- use it as you wish or maybe
don't use it at all -- it's your choice. That's *real* freedom.

Post by Rui Maciel
That is also the case with GPL software but thankfully, as soon as
the jig is up, the courts quickly force the offending companies to
respect their copyright agreement.

Not in U.S. jurisdictions.

FACT: No claim for any relief requested by a GPL license violation
plaintiff has ever been granted by a United States Federal Court. All
GPL complaints have been voluntarily withdrawn long before a judge
could ever read a single word of the license.

The point of Matt Assay's CNET article:

Free software is dead. Long live open source
http://news.cnet.com/openroad/

is that companies are abandoning thoughts of incorporating GPL
licensed code in their products.

The GPL's failure is the fanatic desire of its authors to control
other folk's contributions. The goal of open source software is not to
promote an anti-capitalist, religious experience with a control freak
like Richard Stallman. The goal of open source software is to write
code that others can freely inspect, learn from, contribute to and use
as they wish if they so desire.

The idiotic attempt by Richard Stallman to re-define the meaning of
the word "free" is an abject failure.

Sincerely,
Rjack

Post by Rui Maciel
So no, you got it backwards.
Rui Maciel

[Rick]

Post by Rjack

Post by Rui Maciel

Post by Rjack
Why do you want to take control of another author's BSD licensed code?
The BSD author has already freely offered it to anyone who chooses to
use it. Only anti-capitalist GPL control freaks want to control other
author's source code.

The funny thing is that quite a few companies enjoy picking up
BSD-licensed software, include it in their software and proceed to act
as if it was written by the company itself.

That's the intent of the BSD license -- use it as you wish or maybe
don't use it at all -- it's your choice. That's *real* freedom.

No, the intent is for the copyrights to remain in place.

Post by Rjack

Post by Rui Maciel
That is also the case with GPL software but thankfully, as soon as the
jig is up, the courts quickly force the offending companies to respect
their copyright agreement.

Not in U.S. jurisdictions.
FACT: No claim for any relief requested by a GPL license violation
plaintiff has ever been granted by a United States Federal Court. All
GPL complaints have been voluntarily withdrawn long before a judge could
ever read a single word of the license.

The cases have been settled, not withdrawn. And, AFAIK, the cases have
resulted in the source code being distributed.

Post by Rjack
Free software is dead. Long live open source
http://news.cnet.com/openroad/
is that companies are abandoning thoughts of incorporating GPL licensed
code in their products.

They are?

Post by Rjack
The GPL's failure is the fanatic desire of its authors to control other
folk's contributions.

The GPL doesn't try to control anything. It was written to make sure code
couldn't be removed from community benefit.

Post by Rjack
The goal of open source software is not to promote
an anti-capitalist, religious experience with a control freak like
Richard Stallman. The goal of open source software is to write code that
others can freely inspect, learn from, contribute to and use as they
wish if they so desire.
The idiotic attempt by Richard Stallman to re-define the meaning of the
word "free" is an abject failure.

Stallman has not tried to re-difine free. Get a dictionary.

Post by Rjack
Sincerely,
Rjack

Post by Rui Maciel
So no, you got it backwards.
Rui Maciel

Do you really believe this tripe you are spewing?

[Rjack]

Post by Rick

Rjack wrote: The GPL's failure is the fanatic desire of its
authors to control other folk's contributions.

The GPL doesn't try to control anything. It was written to make
sure code couldn't be removed from community benefit.

Have your ears heard what your mouth has just uttered?


Sincerely,
Rjack :)

[Snit]

Post by Rick

Post by Rjack
The idiotic attempt by Richard Stallman to re-define the meaning of the
word "free" is an abject failure.

Stallman has not tried to re-difine free. Get a dictionary.

The dictionary does not talk about his "freedom 3". Something for you to
chew on, eh?

[Rjack]

Post by Snit

Post by Rick

Post by Rjack
The idiotic attempt by Richard Stallman to re-define the
meaning of the word "free" is an abject failure.

Stallman has not tried to re-difine free. Get a dictionary.

The dictionary does not talk about his "freedom 3". Something for
you to chew on, eh?

Since the dictionary does not define "freedom 3", then it must be
something Stallman imagined. Correct?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

[Snit]

Post by Rjack

Post by Snit

Post by Rick

Post by Rjack
The idiotic attempt by Richard Stallman to re-define the
meaning of the word "free" is an abject failure.

Stallman has not tried to re-difine free. Get a dictionary.

The dictionary does not talk about his "freedom 3". Something for
you to chew on, eh?

Since the dictionary does not define "freedom 3", then it must be
something Stallman imagined. Correct?
Sincerely,
Rjack :)

The Free Software Foundation claims they "maintain" their own definition:

<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html>
-----
We maintain this free software definition...
-----

Do not get me wrong... when speaking about a specific idea which is
important to you, as they are, it makes sense to be precise with how *you*
are using the key words. The fact they do this makes sense... but it is not
a standard dictionary definition, it is far more details and precise.

[Azz Pizz]

Post by Rick
No, the intent is for the copyrights to remain in place.

Isn't for a lot of people the waiver an additional reason to not make it
public domain?

[Rick]

Post by Azz Pizz

Post by Rick
No, the intent is for the copyrights to remain in place.

Isn't for a lot of people the waiver an additional reason to not make it
public domain?

What?

[Azz Pizz]

Post by Azz Pizz

Post by Rick
No, the intent is for the copyrights to remain in place.

Isn't for a lot of people the waiver an additional reason to not make it
public domain?

What?

The software

[Rick]

Post by Azz Pizz

Post by Azz Pizz

Post by Rick
No, the intent is for the copyrights to remain in place.

Isn't for a lot of people the waiver an additional reason to not make
it public domain?

What?

The software

Please rephrase this: Isn't for a lot of people the waiver an additional
reason to not make it public domain?

[Azz Pizz]

Post by Rick
Please rephrase this: Isn't for a lot of people the waiver an additional
reason to not make it public domain?

You got it, that was my question.

[Hyman Rosen]

Post by Rjack
Free software has lost. Open source has won.

This is the usual preposterous nonsense from those who
willfully misunderstand and misrepresent the difference
between the two.