[GNUz] Slashdor discussion of php/mysql/gpl

[InfoHelp]

Jim Cheetham wrote:

> InfoHelp wrote:
>
>> Jim Cheetham wrote:
>>
>>> promotion of GNU/Linux and SuSE simultaneously are potentially 
>>> contradictory.
>>
>> I don't see this at all. If recommending free software means 
>> distributing it along with some less-than-free software, why 
>> shouldn't we? The content is still there - in dilution, admittedly.
>
> It was a parallel to the naming issues of "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux". If 
> recommending "Linux" means "forgetting to mention GNU's contribution", 
> why shouldn't we? The GNU content is still there ... 

No argument here - this is the meaning of "freedom", I'd say. Objective 
might simply be to remove the stigma of stating "GNU" as freely as one 
does "Linux" - including as "GNU/Linux"?

>> What GNU/FSF says to me, is that OSS has a foot in the M$/proprietary 
>> camp already, & it's a slippery slope.
>
> Now, that's already happening in many places. Witness the recent 
> runblings about PHP and it's licenses, and note that PHP5 benefits 
> from Zend's compiler, which is "free to non-comercial users". Also the 
> Creative Commons licenses, where "no commercial use" is a very popular 
> option. The Debian FSG refuses to discriminate against "fields of 
> endeavour", which therefore explicitly allows commercial usage, but 
> other groups are increasingly discriminating against commercial use. 
> It's probably a form of sour-grapes - I didn't see a way to profit 
> from this, so you mustn't either. 

Well, it's a way to work in their charging. In their shoes, we might be 
saying the same. Or we might have headed out for other footwear, for a 
different journey..

> The back-stop answer from FSF is "we think the GPL is the best option 
> to ensure enduring rights". This may turn out to be true. 

More agreement.

>> As in "free as defined by FSF", or "FSF-influence-free"?
>> - very different meanings, opposites it seems.
>> Do you mean that we should be GNU(extinguisher)z through this list?
>
> No, of course not. I wear multiple contradictory hats, often for the 
> sake of arguing a position. "free as defined by FSF" is the right 
> thing for "GNUz" or "GLU" (are you trying to hijack CLUG? CGLU? :-) 

Ok - 'small brain, hurt' is clearer  :-)  - straw men occasionally get 
torched, it would seem. More agreement.

Re "hijack": no, of course not. Geeing CLUG into more action re newbie 
support & advocacy is an appropriate role for an open current tho. 
What CLUG chooses to do re the G/L "naming controversy" is up to CLUG. 
But I don't think it has enough form to do anything much at all. So I'm 
as/more interested to explore building GLU (not just in Canty) 
seperately, and more purposefully.

GLU's just another method for exploring GNUz material - in the field, so 
to speak.

> On the opposing hand, if GNU-proponents can't argue against criticism 
> here, they will not be able to do any better against 
> closed-sw/MS-proponents. 

There's no shortage of arguments to be had, to be sure.. But that's not 
what we have our computers for, exactly, is it? - It's related to, but 
not the same as, leveraging our creative capacities. There is no 
argument that developing these to the max is our obligation to society, 
I'd say. What is better for this purpose than "maximum freedom". Thanks 
RMS. And thankyou Linus & crew, similarly. We're getting there..

>> Why such efforts to vilify him? Is it to accelerate the privatisation 
>> of OSS/Linux community portions?
>
> As I have absolutely no interest in privatising OSS/Linux in any way, 
> my  reactions to RMS must be based on other aspects. 

No-one is perfect. But is RMS's position articulated elsewhere in a more 
palatable way? "Warts-&-all" acceptance might be helpful here.

Of course you are free to articulate whatever position you choose - it's 
likely to prove just as helpful somewhere in the scheme of things.

> -jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNUz mailing list
> GNUz@inode.co.nz
> http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/gnuz 

Regards, Rik