[GNUz] Fwd: Academics Discuss MS vs. OSS

[Jim Cheetham]

Zane Gilmore wrote:
> Although I understand and agree with much of RMS's distinction between
> OSS and Free Software. There needs to be a change in the name of "Free
> Software" for it to get any traction.

RMS is technically correct that there is a big difference between OS and FS.

The real world is about compromise, and we need someone to occupy the
furthest point from the center :-) in order to skew compromise positions
towards them. M$ of course occupy the opposite corner :-)

There doesn't seem to be much of a problem with understanding the way
the GPL works as opposed to other licenses ... we've had it for a long
time, we know how we're supposed to give up some freedoms in order to
preserve others into the long term ...

Switching to documentation ...

> As long as the same rights etc are being given by the Creative Commons
> licence (or whatever) then what is the problem?

I think I'm agreeing ...

Just because the GPL is good, doesn't automatically mean that the GFDL
is good. RMS got it right once, but not necessarily twice. The wording
on the GFDL is longer and more detailed than the GPL, and according to
the considered opinion of the Debian-legal crowd, is too specific and
creates too many edge cases where the intention is countermanded by the
detail.

One of the problems is that documents and copyrights are better
understood by many many more poeple than are computer programs.
Therefore there are more "expert" opinions available :-) Note that the
GPL itself is thought to be suffering, not least because of the
increasing prevalence of so-called "intellectual property" and patent
issues.

The FSF are committed to producing GPLv3 at the moment. If they make a
contentious GFDL-like situation, I suspect GPL usage may plummet, and
it's entirely possible that GNU-replacement packages may start to flood
out (*BSD are gradually replacing GNU tools, but not for the same
reasons. I don't think *anyone* is working in a gcc-replacement
toolchain, though). Imagine Debian having to reject GPLv3 licensed
software because it conflicts with their Social Contract? Seriously,
think about it ...

-jim