<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d9152441\x26blogName\x3dCogs+can+think.\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://thom-holwerda.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://thom-holwerda.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d2507670256471114478', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Cogs can think.

I'm a mere, tiny, insignificant cog in a whole clockwork of stupidity.
The little cog that wanted to break free, I am.

Stallman's a hypocrite

Richard Stallman is such a hypocrite:

A Unix-like operating system is so large that there must surely be parts of Solaris that are better than their counterparts in GNU/Linux. However, the peculiar incompatible licence used to release Solaris as free software mostly prevents us from incorporating those parts. Thus, our community stays with GNU/Linux, and gains little or nothing from this contribution. Now that Solaris is free software, there's nothing unethical about it, but it is not much as a contribution.


Mr. Stallman, your GPL is doing the exact same thing! You cannot incorporate GPL code into other projects without forcing the end product to be GPL too; how is this different from Sun's CDDL? Explain, Mr. Stallman!

How is GPL software open and free if for instance BSD or Haiku (MIT) developers cannot use it? As far as I'm concerned, your GPL isn't true free and open software at all, Mr. Stallman. How does forcing people to use your license fit in with 'free' and 'open' and 'choice'? Vendor lock-in? License lock-in!

BSD and MIT code is truly open, because *anyone* can use it, whether the end-product is open or not. *That* is true freedom, Mr. Stallman. Your GPL is NOT.
« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

12:26 AM, by Anonymous Eugenia

Very well said, Thom!    



2:08 PM, by Blogger Andre

Yeah, very well said.    



3:18 PM, by Blogger Chris

Thirded.

I will say RMS stands by his principals and while I generally agree with his views, somtimes, like that quote, he totally misses the mark.    



4:13 AM, by Anonymous Anonymous

I should also mention, that I saw him in some lecture which he made some funny noise (groan?) after the host introduced a specialist in intellectual property.

Apparently he is against it, it would seem. And despite this, his GPL uses intellectual property to "protect" "freedoms". If he is against IP then he doesn't deserve credit for anything.    



» Post a Comment