Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pholklore
    replied
    Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
    Only religious wackos are concerned by this stuff. For Stallman and the like arguing is more important than getting things done.
    Thank you, but I'm not a wacko, and I am concerned by this stuff. Of course I am. If getting things done would be more important, I'd consider proprietary software just as good an option. That argument just smells like double-standard. No, keeping software free is the most important.
    If you don't agree, feel free to reimplement whatever FSF code you dislike in whatever license you prefer. Nobody's forcing you to use the FSF code.
    Pretend it doesn't exist, and be happy.

    Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
    GNU Hurd is dead in the water and GNU product = slow as shit.
    FUD, plain and simple.

    Leave a comment:


  • ворот93
    replied
    Originally posted by pholklore View Post
    > This is a shame. Open Source licences should support free software, not restrict it(s developers).

    Yes, but _Free_ software licenses, like the GPL, support free software.

    I do not mean to sound impolite, but please educate yourself a bit on the topic before commenting:

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-s...the-point.html
    Only religious wackos are concerned by this stuff. For Stallman and the like arguing is more important than getting things done. That's why GNU Hurd is dead in the water and GNU product = slow as shit.

    Leave a comment:


  • pholklore
    replied
    > This is a shame. Open Source licences should support free software, not restrict it(s developers).

    Yes, but _Free_ software licenses, like the GPL, support free software.

    I do not mean to sound impolite, but please educate yourself a bit on the topic before commenting:

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-s...the-point.html

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Originally posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    This is a shame. Open Source licences should support free software
    It's a Free Software License, not an "Open Source" License.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nuc!eoN
    replied
    This is a shame. Open Source licences should support free software, not restrict it(s developers).
    Unfortunately it's typical for GPL nazis to struggle about politics instead of just getting their things done (Hurd?).

    Leave a comment:


  • pholklore
    replied
    "Unless the Free Software Foundation becomes more accomodating of these open-source developers"

    That's the point, the FSF cares about _free_ software, not open-source developers. Until you realize the distinction, you'll keep spitting out such silly nonsense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Another phoronix article full of credibility...

    Leave a comment:


  • gQuigs
    replied
    I support it being the GPLv3...

    And some program called GRASS? http://grass.osgeo.org/
    It's likely the most used program mentioned in this article.

    "GRASS GIS, commonly referred to as GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System), is a free Geographic Information System (GIS) software used for geospatial data management and analysis, image processing, graphics/maps production, spatial modeling, and visualization. GRASS GIS is currently used in academic and commercial settings around the world, as well as by many governmental agencies and environmental consulting companies."

    It's the premier open source GIS solution, originally developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and now used by many governments around the world..

    Leave a comment:


  • efikkan
    replied
    These are more examples of where the strictness of GPL is actually preventing free software, while the clauses are designed to ensure freedom. GPL could actually hurt it's own cause.

    I'm confident that a GPL which allows more crosslicensing would allow more free software, and it would allow more companies to start freeing their software (as a multiple step process).

    Leave a comment:


  • przemoli
    replied
    And why can not "Open Cascade and Coin3D" move to GPL v3?

    Calling only one party evil where both behave the same is PURE hypocrysy

    And why on earth whould FSF would want to use GPL version TWO, when there is already GPL version THREE ?????????
    Come one. FSF did finalized GPL v3 BECAUSE they think its BETTER than GPLv2.

    Ofc. such frictions do not progress FLOSS case, but they are unavoidable. (I'm sure same friction did existed when FSF freshly introducted GPLv2)

    Oh, there is also patent disarming clause. That may be reason why projects backed by corporation DO NOT WANT to adopt GPLv3. But then FSF is not The Evil One, in such situation

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X