Comment Tragic... (Score 1) 226
It's a shame to see so many people take what they have for granted:
1. Linux exists because of the FSF first, OSI second.
2. The FSF exists because of RMS.
I don't believe that BP is whining; he tried to find a way to package the FSF ideals in a way that may have made those ideals more palatable to the general public. What he is discovering is that the general public wants to hoard the fruits of the movement that started with the FSF and RMS.
As for whether or not M$ and Windoze will win, they already have in a way (the zealots out there: bear with me). If you measure winning by having the biggest most profitable software company in the world, or if you measure winning by installed base, then yes, they have won. I don't believe that that has to be the end of the game. FSF and the rest of the world can exist together. The importance of Linux, or the FSF, need not be diminished because there is a big boy on the block. I don't believe that Linux or the FSF will get squashed into non-existance by anyone. I don't think we need more flames about M$'s taking over the world. Trying to put OSI and FSF (i.e. GPL) this all in perspective:
1. Non-open source is the least desirable.
2. Open source is better, but not the best.
3. FSF's GPL is best.
The order presented above is in relation to the individual's rights (freedoms) with regard to using products with the given type of license.
It is clear that BP started out at FSF's GPL level. He created OSI to promote the "acceptable" parts of the GPL, but clearly he hoped that he had enough in OSI that it would essentially be the same as GPL. Clearly he was mistaken. His letter indicates that he is retreating to the FSF GPL and is thinking of other ways to promote the GPL.
My 2 cents.
1. Linux exists because of the FSF first, OSI second.
2. The FSF exists because of RMS.
I don't believe that BP is whining; he tried to find a way to package the FSF ideals in a way that may have made those ideals more palatable to the general public. What he is discovering is that the general public wants to hoard the fruits of the movement that started with the FSF and RMS.
As for whether or not M$ and Windoze will win, they already have in a way (the zealots out there: bear with me). If you measure winning by having the biggest most profitable software company in the world, or if you measure winning by installed base, then yes, they have won. I don't believe that that has to be the end of the game. FSF and the rest of the world can exist together. The importance of Linux, or the FSF, need not be diminished because there is a big boy on the block. I don't believe that Linux or the FSF will get squashed into non-existance by anyone. I don't think we need more flames about M$'s taking over the world. Trying to put OSI and FSF (i.e. GPL) this all in perspective:
1. Non-open source is the least desirable.
2. Open source is better, but not the best.
3. FSF's GPL is best.
The order presented above is in relation to the individual's rights (freedoms) with regard to using products with the given type of license.
It is clear that BP started out at FSF's GPL level. He created OSI to promote the "acceptable" parts of the GPL, but clearly he hoped that he had enough in OSI that it would essentially be the same as GPL. Clearly he was mistaken. His letter indicates that he is retreating to the FSF GPL and is thinking of other ways to promote the GPL.
My 2 cents.
