[Ilugc] change in name
- From: prabhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Prabhu Ramachandran)
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:51:13 +0530
Hey Suraj,
"SK" == Suraj Kumar <suraj@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
prabhu> I dont think that quote is originally RMS's but I dont
prabhu> know the original source either (was it Jefferson?).
SK> No. RMS said this in his visit to chennai at MIT, Chromepet:
SK>
http://www.chennailug.org/rms-chennai.txt
Yes, I meant that the quote itself is not directly from RMS. I think
RMS borrowed it from somewhere else. No big deal.
SK> I had no intentions of telling that people can't read english
SK> or that people can't read legalese. I was trying to tell that
SK> GPL seems restrictive because it makes sure the freedom goes
SK> with the software and to do this it makes us give way to other
SK> less prioritized freedoms. I had no intentions of telling that
SK> non-GPLed free licenses are wrong. Most of us (including me)
SK> use and hail the use of other free licenses.
Oh, ok. I just want to make it clear that one should not think that
GPL is best for all. Its simply doesn't work that way.
SK> I shouldn't have used to word abuse. It was an instinct that
SK> made me use the word. When we look at how BSD itself has been
SK> "used" by Apple inc., it made me use strong words. However had
SK> FreeBSD been licensed under the GPL I'm pretty sure MacOSX
SK> wouldn't have had so many people dangled to it now.
Some people don't see Apple using BSD as "bad". Some think its good.
It all differs. Infact the fact that Apple used BSD is an endorsement
that companies are willing to bet money on OSS. Which means that OSS
has hope and is good (yeah we all know that but lesser mortals...).
OTOH its an issue that BSD will not get Aqua for free or other tools
for free. However please note that AFAIK Apple hired one (or more) of
the chief BSD developers, so now BSD gets a full time developer who
works on BSD. So its not asif Apple simply stole the code and did not
give back. I also think they would have made some serious
contributions back to the BSD community (I dont know the details tho).
I think many human beings are decent. Not everyone is a thief. :)
SK> Agreed. BSD lets _anyone_ develop / add features to your
SK> code. That might be, ummm... in my view *evil* proprietary
SK> software companies too ;) I'm not against people making money
SK> or using non-free software to get their job done (if they have
SK> all that money). The main intent of this thread was to ask if
SK> ILUGC should encourage the use of non-free softwares by giving
SK> demos of such software.
What do you mean by non-free software? Non-GPL software? Or
proprietary software that does not come with source? Most GPL
fanatics (not that you are one) seem to associate non-GPL software
with non-free software.
BTW, there is one advantage of demo'ing commercial software. You get
to see how commercial software works and what features they put in.
This way you can enhance your free software equivalents. You should
not hesitate to learn, even if you happen to learn from your enemy. :)
prabhu> Its usually not fame. Its just that there is a good
prabhu> chance that better software will be available.
SK> Considering RMS's vision of giving freedom to all people, we
SK> would definitely note that when all people are free from the
SK> hands of proprietary software all of them would be working on
SK> free softwares and we would all have good quality free
Possible but many of them might not be alive if that were the case.
Many people cannot live like RMS (and many certainly will not want to
be like him). If software weren't lucrative many folks wouldn't be
working and using computers. You might be doing something else.
There are other issues to consider here.
SK> "The important thing is to spread freedom to as many people as
SK> possible and ultimately to everyone. Thats the goal thats
SK> worth striving for. We have to remember that goal. because the
SK> most important thing for reaching a distant goal is to
SK> remember the goal. if you forget where you've headed you're
SK> going to end-up somewhere else! and is idealism really
SK> impractical? Not at all. If you are a distant goal, there are
SK> only two ways to reach it. one of them is to have a lot of
SK> money. and the other is idealism. because idealism will enable
SK> you to keep on going until you get there, otherwise you'd just
SK> give it up. so we don't have a lot of money. so we have to
SK> have this idealism instead. there's nothing more practical
SK> like idealism. The GNU system and the GNU/Linux variants are
SK> our idealism made real. But, very few people are saying this
SK> to the users of GNU/Linux"
Ok, but remember that it is an idealism. There is one point that I
find unmentioned in RMS's arguments. He seems to indicate (he may
think otherwise) that software is different and unconnected with the
rest of the world. It is not. Economy drives many (most?) things and
economy is a wierd beast. Its not enough if you idealize a software
world. You need to idealize the rest of the world too. Many things
are connected you cant change one without changing the other. Todays
business practices, economy, society, etc. all control the way many
things and people behave. You cannot isolate software and idealize
it. You need to change more than that. To some western people the
concept of GPL is alien and IIRC Microsoft or someone compared GPL to
communism (which was (is?) considered really evil in the US). You
see, its not enough if you push GPL, you need to educate them, make
them think differently make companies work differently.
Currently it makes sense for some to use GPL and some to use BSD.
Both are relavant and useful. Please do not forget that.
prabhu> There are other licenses that let you share and enjoy as
prabhu> much if not more freedom. Please keep that in mind.
SK> I hate repeating the same thing again and again. other free
SK> softwares licenses are good too and there has been a lot of
SK> contribution to the society from those softwares which were
SK> released under non-GPLed licenses. Anything that is free is
SK> good. But its just that it would be better if it assured the
SK> freedom. I was just trying to tell that GPL is a way to
SK> protect the freedom that your free software offers someone.
Maybe maybe not. Some people think otherwise. I think ILUGC's
attitude should be to treat all OSS licenses as good enough for
discussion. Let each choose his/her own license.
prabhu> Because we are ILUGC and not FSF.
SK> Do you remember what ILUGC's index page reads?
SK> <quote> We are a heterogeneous group of computer users from
SK> the South Indian city of Chennai (formerly, Madras), united in
SK> our use and support of Free Software in general and the
SK> GNU/Linux operating system in particular </quote>
By free we really mean OSS. Arun wrote those words. He used to run
BSD and even did a demo on it. BTW, I've never run BSD myself.
SK> Probably I have been in this group without knowing that we not
SK> only support the use of free softwares but also non-free
SK> softwares. (thats as good as saying we are Chennai ALL
SK> software users group?) Does the index page need a change?
I think you are jumping a little ahead of yourself. We only said we
are not a pure GPL group here. We admire RMS and other folks for what
they have done. We dont particularly endorse or support any license.
BTW, you've been on this group for a few years now. When did you see
a commercial demo as in people selling you something? Have you never
played quake or any decent non-free game? Whats wrong if someone says
hey here is a demo of crosover plugin running on linux? Whats wrong
with a VMWare demo? They are things that are useful. We dont endorse
them but if you want to demo it whats wrong? Besides we are
democratic and always decide civilly amongst ourselves.
SK> PS: Its fun for me too to be flaming but then in the larger
SK> interest of the members here I would stop responding to this
SK> thread. Primarily because I, probably by a mistake, thought
SK> ILUGC wants to support free softwares and that it wouldn't
SK> make sense if it supports non-free softwares too. *shrug* so,
SK> do I conclude that ILUGC would support non-free softwares?
Your choice of words is very misleading. We dont support any
software. People are nice enough to answer questions -- sometimes
about commercial products. However we have actively discouraged
questions on commercial products on ilugc (it doesnt make sense anyway
-- they should mail the company). We also discourage off topic and
windows (and other non-OSS) specific questions. However if someone is
installing linux on a windows box he/she does need to ask windows
specific questions? Why should we not support that?
My point is simple. As Ganesh said, ILUGC is doing fine. Let it
be. :)
cheers,
prabhu
Other related posts:
