> Because all this energy put into the war
> over license, did not create a single line
> of code, nor do I see how it helped protecting
> things. Once a code is open, it stays open,
> even if other people use that to make other
> things closed.
War?
rms is in a singular position - he has authored some of the most useful components of free software out there, and also one of the most useful free software licences.
If you're going to complain about his contribution on either front, you'd need to present some hefty credentials of your own.
> For me it seems he would much rather have no
> computer at all, than one with a normal OSS
> license.
Judging the merit of the man's position based on how things seem to you is perhaps disingenuous.
Also, a 'normal OSS licence' - I wonder what you mean by this.
DFSG has some clear thoughts on the matter of free software licences, and there's myriad licences that (to varying degrees) are considered sufficiently free by the FSF, but I don't know of any useful definition of 'normal OSS licence'.
There's risks with categorising groups of licences - here [2] is a discussion about the risks of talking about a/the 'bsd licence', for example.
Since we are by definition talking about definitions, being overly casual with our words is inappropriate.
> So if the original goal was to operate in a
> open world, where you are allowed to study
> and modify the software you use, I call it
> irrational and fanatic to focus on the license.
Original goal was about freedom.
Happily, original goal hasn't changed in ~30 years.
I can't tell if you are intentionally conflating the issue with your insistence on 'open' / avoidance of 'free', or if you haven't finished reading the available source materials.
> And for the ordinary user there is by far not
> enough OSS to satisfy the needs.
That's a grand claim to be making, and it seems to me that it's not the case.
rms is in a singular position - he has authored some of the most useful components of free software out there, and also one of the most useful free software licences.
If you're going to complain about his contribution on either front, you'd need to present some hefty credentials of your own.
Judging the merit of the man's position based on how things seem to you is perhaps disingenuous.Also, a 'normal OSS licence' - I wonder what you mean by this.
DFSG has some clear thoughts on the matter of free software licences, and there's myriad licences that (to varying degrees) are considered sufficiently free by the FSF, but I don't know of any useful definition of 'normal OSS licence'.
There's risks with categorising groups of licences - here [2] is a discussion about the risks of talking about a/the 'bsd licence', for example.
Since we are by definition talking about definitions, being overly casual with our words is inappropriate.
Original goal was about freedom.Happily, original goal hasn't changed in ~30 years.
I can't tell if you are intentionally conflating the issue with your insistence on 'open' / avoidance of 'free', or if you haven't finished reading the available source materials.
That's a grand claim to be making, and it seems to me that it's not the case.[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fanaticism
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html