Re: Free software is dead.

[Rick]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:57:54 -0400, Rjack wrote:

> Rui Maciel wrote:
>> Rjack wrote:
>> 
>>> Why do you want to take control of another author's BSD licensed code?
>>> The BSD author has already freely offered it to anyone who chooses to
>>> use it. Only anti-capitalist GPL control freaks want to control other
>>> author's source code.
>> 
>> The funny thing is that quite a few companies enjoy picking up
>> BSD-licensed software, include it in their software and proceed to act
>> as if it was written by the company itself.
> 
> That's the intent of the BSD license -- use it as you wish or maybe
> don't use it at all -- it's your choice. That's *real* freedom.

No, the intent is for the copyrights to remain in place.

> 
>> That is also the case with GPL software but thankfully, as soon as the
>> jig is up, the courts quickly force the offending companies to respect
>> their copyright agreement.
> 
> Not in U.S. jurisdictions.
> 
> FACT: No claim for any relief requested by a GPL license violation
> plaintiff has ever been granted by a United States Federal Court. All
> GPL complaints have been voluntarily withdrawn long before a judge could
> ever read a single word of the license.

The cases have been settled, not withdrawn. And, AFAIK, the cases have 
resulted in the source code being distributed.

> 
> The point of Matt Assay's CNET article:
> 
> Free software is dead. Long live open source
> http://news.cnet.com/openroad/
> 
> is that companies are abandoning thoughts of incorporating GPL licensed
> code in their products.

They are?

> 
> The GPL's failure is the fanatic desire of its authors to control other
> folk's contributions.

The GPL doesn't try to control anything. It was written to make sure code 
couldn't be removed from community benefit.

> The goal of open source software is not to promote
> an anti-capitalist, religious experience with a control freak like
> Richard Stallman. The goal of open source software is to write code that
> others can freely inspect, learn from, contribute to and use as they
> wish if they so desire.
> 
> The idiotic attempt by Richard Stallman to re-define the meaning of the
> word "free" is an abject failure.

Stallman has not tried to re-difine free. Get a dictionary.

> 
> Sincerely,
> Rjack

>> So no, you got it backwards.
>> 
>> 
>> Rui Maciel

Do you really believe this tripe you are spewing?
-- 
Rick