Sounds like vaporware. Where would it's power come from?
Why, from the vapor of course!
In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these features to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be able to freely modify the software they use.
(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... )
On the Internet, nobody can hear you being subtle
So what if some technically superior thing Torvalds wants to do requires being subtle? Doesn't that ever happen, or will he trade the technical superiority for being heard?
Sorry if capitalism is painful that way.
it might not affect you or me (in any negative way), but exploitation does happen. Does that mean nobody is entitled to ask for proper remuneration?
Re:Direct Market =! a bad thing
what language do you use for programming?
The current suite of equipment on the Traditional Media desk includes one Dell Optiplex GX620 workstation (232 GB HD/2MB RAM),...
is it anywhere near as fast as Chrome?
sure, that's what the sleek and smooth tabs are for. jeez, don't you even read rhe summary?
And no I'm not RMS
no need to stipulate that.
Or alternatively, BSD emphasizes freedom for everybody. GPL emphasizes freedom for end-users by attempting to ensure that any derivative works are also free. The real world effect of course is that people writing commercial software still write the same commercial software, but can't use anything involving GPL in those products. So, even if there's a commonly used tool that does most of the job, they have to reinvent the wheel which means that they waste more time doing that then adding value to customer (or have to charge the customer more to cover the increased development time).
The users have exactly the same freedoms as before PLUS the ability to buy a product that might better serve their needs. The end-users are still just as free to use the original software as they were before.
Your point about commercial software developers benefitting from BSD by building closed source software based on open source software is not convincing to me. If there were no GPL at all, and all open sourced software would be BSD licensed, how much open source software would there be for a commercial developer to benefit from in the first place? Not much I fear, if we were all commercial developers like that.
The GPL is all or nothing, and the GPL community often gets absolutely nothing by insisting on all.
I'm not so sure about that. The Linux kernel (GPL-licensed) for example, is much more widespread than the OpenBSD kernel (BSD-licensed). I think an important reason why Linux is a success is that it receives contributions from many sides, including commercial enterprises. It is not at all self-evident that this would have been the case if Linux would have been BSD-licensed.
How many Bavarian Illuminati does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Three: one to screw it in, and one to confuse the issue.