Quote: That just sounds like a whole lot of Microsoft-bashing to me.

Actually it's not. Microsoft's service has gone up in leaps and bounds. The company I'm bashing considers Microsoft small potatoes, and is a lot more arrogant and draconian than you can imagine, even though they're losing their market share to them quickly.

Quote: I can name dozens (hundreds!) of software companies that have been around for decades, selling proprietary software and who haven't had to resort to "devour[ing] other smaller companies, expand[ing] into other markets" or "abusing it's monopoly".

Quote: Monopoly? Other than Microsoft, what proprietary software companies can be argued to be running a monopoly?

Adobe is practically running a monopoly in the graphic design sector. They practically even control education in that sector. They had, but they will likely lose soon, a near-monopoly in rich internet applications. Until Microsoft started enroaching in their field, Oracle had a de-facto monopoly in enterprise databases. Oracle recently did a series of hostile takeovers, and has started to look into offering "complete packages" more closely. What this means, is that they are letting compatibility go down the drain. Google has managed to create several markets at once, which it currently has a monopoly.

Quote: Even Microsoft's monopoly has been eroding away in recent years, and they're in no danger of going out of business any time soon (certainly not in the forseeable future).

The thing is that Microsoft is more willing than some companies to evolve, and they have a lot of foresight in evolving. They're investing a lot in programmer knowledge, and in making their SDKs more open. It's quite likely that in the foreseeable future Microsoft will be just as open as google. It is also highly likely that Microsoft will try to empower businesses in the area where google hasn't: In a cloud document system which can be securely run on a personal network.

Quote: And do you agree with his political agenda or not ?

I'm not looking to make this discussion any more hostile than it has become (And really, if it wasn't an asshole move to take out all the political stuff from my original post, I would, that hasn't added anything to this discussion), but what is it that Stallman said that you don't agree with?

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
I'm not looking to make this discussion any more hostile than it has become (And really, if it wasn't an asshole move to take out all the political stuff from my original post, I would, that hasn't added anything to this discussion), but what is it that Stallman said that you don't agree with?

I disagree with his assertion that writers of proprietary software are immoral and unethical. I disagree that giving a person a useful program without source code is violating his freedom, and I disagree that a person who uses a closed program doesn't care about his freedom. I disagree with the premise that "software freedom" is anywhere as important as he makes it out to be. I think that its possible to develop closed software that is still respectful of the user's rights and freedoms (no DRM, no bullshit reverse-engineering clauses, no shrink-wrap EULAs).

The entirety of Stallman's argument is that you deserve the source code and deserve to re-distribute the software, and that doing anything else is a violation of your freedom. I find this view to be a whiny entitlement mentality, and I get pretty damn offended by the pompousness that he, and his advocates, use in denouncing me as unethical, simply because my software is copyrighted and doesn't come with source code.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan

Quote: That just sounds like a whole lot of Microsoft-bashing to me.

Actually it's not. Microsoft's service has gone up in leaps and bounds. The company I'm bashing considers Microsoft small potatoes, and is a lot more arrogant and draconian than you can imagine, even though they're losing their market share to them quickly.

Wait, what? Here's a list of the 500 largest (by revenue) corporations in the United States. Microsoft is at #35 by revenue. The only companies more profitable than Microsoft (which profited $17.7 billion in the year surveyed) are Chevron and Exxon-Mobil. Google weighs in with $4.2B in profits.

So really, who is it that considers Microsoft small potatoes?

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
I'm not looking to make this discussion any more hostile than it has become (And really, if it wasn't an asshole move to take out all the political stuff from my original post, I would, that hasn't added anything to this discussion), but what is it that Stallman said that you don't agree with?

I make my living off an industry that develops and sells proprietary closed source, DRM'ed and (partially) patented software. I'll let you make an educated guess about what part of Stallmans' drivel I disagree with...

Quote: Uhm, it is written in the preamble of the license...

...which is exactly that. A preamable. It's not part of the terms and conditions and carries no (legal) meaning.

Quote: And do you agree with his political agenda or not ?

Does it matter?

Quote: I make my living off an industry that develops and sells proprietary closed source, DRM'ed and (partially) patented software. I'll let you make an educated guess about what part of Stallmans' drivel I disagree with...

I make my living off free and open source software, the majority of which is licensed under the GPL or a derivative. I'll let you make an educated guess about why I disagree with you that the GPL is nothing but political drivel.

Quote: Original post by Sander
I make my living off free and open source software, the majority of which is licensed under the GPL or a derivative. I'll let you make an educated guess about why I disagree with you that the GPL is nothing but political drivel.

I don't think Yann is trying to say that the GPL is nothing but political drivel, but rather than its not possible to separate the GPL from the political philosophy that it was written to promote. Looking at the politics and drama surrounding Linux ("No, its GNU/Linux not Linux", "Linux *has* to upgrade to GPLv3"), despite Linus's pragmatic stance towards using the license, lends credence to that argument. Hell, Linus has been seen as a poster-boy of the FOSS movement by some, and there's nothing in his work that indicates that he even cares about Stallman's crusade (much to Stallman's ire). My impression is that, if you use the GPL with your software and your software becomes influential, many FOSS advocates will take it upon themselves to put words in your mouth even if you do not support their views.

Quote: Original post by Rycross
but rather than its not possible to separate the GPL from the political philosophy that it was written to promote.

Which is exactly what I disagree with.

Quote: Looking at the politics and drama surrounding Linux ("No, its GNU/Linux not Linux", "Linux *has* to upgrade to GPLv3") [...] lends credence to that argument.

I've been deep into FOSS land for several years now and these kinds of discussions are just blips on the radar. Noise. It's like DirectX v.s OpenGL flamewars here in game development land. Noise by a small but vocal minority. There are a lot of passionate people involved in FOSS so it's no big surprise.

The open atmosphere in FOSS land contributes to that as well. It means the dirty laundry, flamewars, etcetera is out in the open as well :-)

Quote: My impression is that, if you use the GPL with your software and your software becomes influential, many FOSS advocates will take it upon themselves to put words in your mouth even if you do not support their views.

Worry about starting, building and running such a big and successful GPL software project first :-) Also, I don't think it's specific to GPL software or FOSS. When you're influential in something, people will put words in your mouth. No matter what discipline you're in.

Quote: Original post by Sander

Quote: Original post by Rycross
but rather than its not possible to separate the GPL from the political philosophy that it was written to promote.

Which is exactly what I disagree with.

Ok, you can use the license without subscribing to the agenda.
...but you simply can't separate the license from the agenda -- they're the same document, the license prohibits you from removing the preamble.

So while you can separate your own views from the views expressed by the document, you can't argue that the license is separable from the preamble...


That said, why isn't there a "clone" of the GPL license which has all the same terms but no diatribe attached to the front of it?

Quote: Original post by Sander

Quote: You can sell precisely one copy of your GPL program

You're still thinking in terms of shrink-wrapped software. 90% of the worlds software is custom made or customised.

I wouldn't call it "selling" the software, then. If what you do is produce custom software, then what you are doing is work for hire, and it just happens that this work produces software (rather than chopped wood, for example).

It is still correct that you can sell precisely one copy of your GPL program. The two reasons that you can get away with this are: 1) that there is precisely one customer in the world who needs that software in the first place, and 2) that they are willing to pay enough money for their copy.

Quote: Original post by Sander
...which is exactly that. A preamable. It's not part of the terms and conditions and carries no (legal) meaning.

Are you sure about this? I think if a dispute arises about how to interpret a particular clause of the license, then people will look at the context, and the preamble is a big part of that context. So if there is a question about how to interpret a clause, it will be interpreted in the spirit of the preamble, and so will carry legal meaning.