Hi Robert (and all)!
"Jarvis, Robert P. (Contingent)" Jarvisb@timken.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew C. Greenberg [mailto:werdna@mucow.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:05 AM
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 04:00 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
I do understand your observation but honestly - all these comparisons between FSF/GNU/Richard Stallman and Communism/ Soviet Union are:
<snip!>
Well, not to support the analogy, but there is little doubt that "free software" engineered so you can't do things with it isn't particularly free.
Andrew,
Once again you have clearly and rationally stated that which I am too emotional or inarticulate to say myself. Thank you.
I am sorry if I came on too "hard", it wasn't on purpose. I have reread your original post and realized I might have reacted too strongly. I apologize for that.
I just feel that the comparison with the old Soviet union is quite unfair, not because of your reasoning - the analogy is in fact quite ok from a logical perspective - the GPL does definitely have a lot more clauses/rules than say BSD/MIT.
What I react to is more the association of GPL with communism (in it's negative forms).
Anyway, sorry again!
Bob Jarvis Compuware @ Timken
regards, Göran
On Friday, November 2, 2001, at 03:32 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
What I react to is more the association of GPL with communism (in it's negative forms).
Let's see. GPL requires, and enforces by operation of law and the power of the state, that anyone using the software must, upon distribution, share their work derived therefrom with everyone who asks for it.
Whether or not this is deemed by Goran to be a bad thing, it appears he objects to the use of the term more because it is pejorative than because it is apt. Just as he appropriates the word "free" for use with GPL, presumably to capture the salutary connotations of the word, he quibbles with others who use moderately apt phrases because of negative connotations therewith.
In fact, GPL cannot stand or fall on wordplay (and that is *ALL* this thread has been about -- there has yet to be a single substantive argument as to the benefits of the highly-constrained GPL license for monolithic Smalltalk image). I argue the devil's advocacy here, not because I believe GPL is a socialist plot, but to lay naked the fact that FSF zealots, and their more rational colleagues such as Goran, rely heavily upon (and therefore react negatively against) a big-brotheresque newspeak in lieu of argument.
Seriously, Goran. Nobody on this forum sees the questions here as deep or demonstrating anything other than our desire to debate. I have begged thus far for a REASON why GPL has anything good to offer the world where monolithic images lives.
It is plain beyond cavil that if GPL did not permit distribution with independent blocks of software not GPL'd, or interaction with non-GPL software at the operating system level, NOBODY ANYWHERE would use it. Its success depended upon compromising the RMS-free (to distinguish the term from the ordinary usage) software principles for the realities of a Unix operating system. He simply decided that there aren't enough folks using a monolithic image to justify compromising for smalltalk systems.
Thus, whether it is RMS-free or not, it is useless for Smalltalk where ANY code is not GPL'd. This is, of course, is a really bad thing, whether it is RMS-free or not.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org