RMS Condemns "UnitedLinux" per-seat License

dep writes "Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."

nah, that aint what pisses him off....

[jeffy124]

he's actually pissed it's not called GNU/UnitedLinux

Well that settles it!

[Limburgher]

I guess I'll just have to stick to RedHat, TinyLinux and Lycoris.

Hang on, I was going to do that anyway. . .

Read title carefully

[dmccarty]

Woah, I read "RMS" and "condoms" and didn't want to read any more about that!

Re:Read title carefully

[NitsujTPU]

Open Sores Condoms?

Ouch!

developer refusal.

[larry bagina]

"...He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."

I would refuse to allow my work to be included, but I licensed it under the GPL, so I can't.

RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ...

[zangdesign]

If you read the article, they will be in complete compliance with the GPL - they won't make BINARIES available, but SOURCE CODE will be.

As for the proprietary software, something has to be done to ensure that they survive. Otherwise, there will be only two Linux companies, and eventually there will only be IBM.

Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a bad episode of Highlander when I observe the Linux crowd.

Re:Is there anything that RMS likes?

[RoadWarriorX]

I suppose he likes Free Software, right?
D'oh!

Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Judge not, lest thou be judged"

Something rms does constantly...

What is the value add?

[JoeWalsh]

I'm confused - what value does UnitedLinux add versus its competitors? It seems as though it has the potential to someday come into parity with Red Hat in terms of third-party support, but if I can get Red Hat's product without restrictive licensing or buy the equivalent (but restrictively licensed) product from one of the UnitedLinux companies, which one am I most likely to buy?

It seems like these companies have a strange way of differentiating themselves from the competition. I can only imagine the meeting this came out of:

Executive 1: "How can we go up against Microsoft and Red Hat?"
Executive 2: [thinks real hard, smoke starts coming out of his ears] "Uh....I dunno."
Executive 3: "Add a free liverwurst sandwich in each box?"
Executive 1: "No one wants that!"
Executive 2: "I might want it."
Executive 1: "No, you wouldn't! That's gross!"
Executive 2: "Well, if I was a Linux user I might."
Executive 1: "Come on, even they aren't that disgusting."
Executive 4: "Hey, I think you're on to something! Let's include something that almost no one wants! Like...hmmm...uh....hmm..." [his forehead starts to sizzle as his brain goes into overdrive]
Executive 2: "I know! A Microsoft-style restrictive license! Red Hat doesn't have that, and Microsoft doesn't have the Free Source software like we do! It'll give us a competi...uh...competi...uh..."
Executive 1: "Competitive advantage?"
Executive 3: "You said 'titi'!" [Falls out of his high-backed, cushioned chair, laughing]

Yup, that's probably pretty much how it went. (I'll let you figure out which exec is which.)

-Joe

Re:nah, that aint what pisses him off....

[Bob McCown]

Shouldnt that be GNUnitedLinux?

Re:Read title carefully

[questionlp]

No wonder Microsoft calls the GPL a viral thing... ick! But I wouldn't want Shared Sores either.

Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?!

[Ayon Rantz]

But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.

You must mean "sticking to his gnus" :)

GNU+Linux

[GodWasAnAlien]

Is RMS tired of dividing GNU by Linux?

Re:Absurd

[BlueWonder]

RMS, what's the problem here? It is clear to me that if you don't want your work redistributed for a fee, you are using the wrong license!

Huh? RMS is actively encouraging [gnu.org] people who redistribute GPL'd software to charge as much as possible.