I will not bow to your God
(RMS is Richard M. Stallman, GPL is General Public License, and BSD is Berkeley Software Distribution)
I mean, seriously!
So how does it feel to know that a man you idolize such as Linus has succumbed to being a total goon for RMS?
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310
Here's the background:
A guy develops a driver for Phillips webcams. He's done it in the past and also included a function to be used for binary programs that users may develop. He himself develops and markets such an item that will take advantage of this. The issue he has is that the kernel developers want to be the ones supplying the end user with content rather than let those who have something to gain from developing the drivers do the work.
This is much different from the common argument that the GPL actually ends up restricting the end user. No, Stallman has a dream that can and has been turned into a reality. The problem is the execution fails to consider the stakeholders. The end user does maintain accessibility to the source. The end user is empowered to make his or her own decisions. The only loser is the developer. Not the kernel developer, but developer in between.
Where BSD succeeds, GPL fails. Where GPL succeeds, BSD fails. Or so it is thought. A developer seeking to support himself cannot do so, and thus, does not, and will not, contribute. This is where Linux fails. I will never release source under the GPL. I may under the BSD. I do not want someone using my scriptures in their sermon only to later be attacked by the Pope for their execution or not crediting me or "the church".
I will not bow to your God, RMS.
I mean, seriously!
So how does it feel to know that a man you idolize such as Linus has succumbed to being a total goon for RMS?
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310
Here's the background:
A guy develops a driver for Phillips webcams. He's done it in the past and also included a function to be used for binary programs that users may develop. He himself develops and markets such an item that will take advantage of this. The issue he has is that the kernel developers want to be the ones supplying the end user with content rather than let those who have something to gain from developing the drivers do the work.
This is much different from the common argument that the GPL actually ends up restricting the end user. No, Stallman has a dream that can and has been turned into a reality. The problem is the execution fails to consider the stakeholders. The end user does maintain accessibility to the source. The end user is empowered to make his or her own decisions. The only loser is the developer. Not the kernel developer, but developer in between.
Where BSD succeeds, GPL fails. Where GPL succeeds, BSD fails. Or so it is thought. A developer seeking to support himself cannot do so, and thus, does not, and will not, contribute. This is where Linux fails. I will never release source under the GPL. I may under the BSD. I do not want someone using my scriptures in their sermon only to later be attacked by the Pope for their execution or not crediting me or "the church".
I will not bow to your God, RMS.