[GNUz] Fwd: Academics Discuss MS vs. OSS

[Richard Tindall]

Jim Cheetham wrote:

> It would be interesting if the wiki allowed a license to be chosen 
> when a page is initially created. I'll think about that. Perhaps there 
> should be a GLU wiki under GFDL, and the two wikis would refer to each 
> other under the InterWiki map naming - CLUG:PageUnderCC and 
> GLU:PageUnderGFDL ?

So that would be two separate wiki structures? Or GLU as an adjunct to 
CLUG? Either way, I can see no reason not to try it out, if it's not 
going to cost you too much effort Jim. Thanks for the proposals. How it 
would develop remains to be seen, but the 'sandbox' concept is well 
known to us all. Perhaps there will be innovation in the area of F/OSS 
cooperation to justify the effort. Certainly I am clear about wanting to 
work under an explicitly Free Software brand, that has not been visible 
within the LUG, and such an extension would allow for that. A couple of 
hours after reading your post, I'm still waiting for some negative 
drawback to become apparent; ..de nada. Except if there was lack of use, 
but that would be a lesson in itself too.

Just did a bit of searching, to remind myself how those myriad sites now 
drawing material off Wikipedia handle attribution: e.g. 
http://www.answers.com/topic/bsd-and-gpl-licensing . This seems to 
answer any question about the "functionality" of the GFDL. Aren't 
Wikipedia CDs on sale now too? - Business facilitated.

Then I found http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and 
http://daringfireball.net/2004/12/markdown_licensing , which exemplify 
the polar opposite directions on licensing. The latter scrapped the GPL, 
under duress? BSD distros can't carry any (new) GPL code? Or won't, out 
of principle?

http://63.249.85.132/open_source_license.htm shows the influence of (or 
on) ESR, strong as it is. Well worth a read.

Here's a curly Q: if the GNU/Linux kernel had come out BSD/Linux, what 
difference would we be seeing in RedHat & SuSE (et.al.) - on top of 
non-provision of source code? I can't see them bundling the extra CDs 
voluntarily. So is the GNU/GPL not the biggest contributor - as 
guarantor - to "Open Source" now anyway?

The argument is really about the "productization" of Linux/OSS [ESR, 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/], as to whether it is a 
good or a bad thing (where it clearly was not for BSD UNIX). It can be 
both, if we recognise the need to maintain a vibrant Free Software 
community for ensuring that there will still be a free Unix in the long 
run. Finding concerted promotional activity in partnership with OS is 
the pressing challenge now. The pressure on OS to ditch GNU targets 
licensing symbolically and more - this is the same shift that sidelined 
BSD in the first place, and the M$ market dominance will not allow a 
further decade for recovery this time.

Continuing the tradition of a free Unix is a much deeper prospect than 
Open Source philosophy alone has grasped.  It is not a full toolset. The 
GCC alone substantiates the GNU case, but the GPL tool has cohered a 
market (initiated by BSD). The GFDL is proving a worthwhile ancilliary 
tool in continuing the knowledge and existence of community software, 
when all around us the direction is proprietary. Especially in Open Source.

M$ does not care how it gets Linux, as long as it does. Sugar-coated job 
offers and academic flunkies may suffice. The GNU Project has been 
developing the fundamental tools to protect FOSS for twenty years. Let 
us use them,

On with the readings..

Cheers, Rik

-- 
Richard Tindall, InfoHelp Services <http://www.infohelp.co.nz> on:
Ubuntu GNU/Linux 5.04 free OS, 2.6.10-5-686 kernel, GNOME 2.10.0 desktop