Linux World domination (was Re: [NCLUG] PC for Linux (Ubuntu))

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 04:12:12PM -0600, Paul Hummer wrote:
> Chad-
> 
> <disclaimer>Below is my opinion, and has no citations.  Chad and I have
> had many conversations about licenses, and while we both love free
> software, we agree to disagree on some of the niggle-points.</disclaimer>
> 
> >   2. I'm surprised at the way this discussion has, in several branchings
> >   from the main trunk, gone from referring to Free/Libre/Open Source
> >   software to specifically talking about the GPL.  I probably shouldn't
> >   be, since it seems like 98% of the open source world normally doesn't
> >   consider that there are open source licenses other than the GPL (or
> >   open source OSes other than those based on the Linux kernel and GNU
> >   toolset), but for some reason it always surprises me that people who
> >   have so much experience with others essentially being unwilling to
> >   admit the existence of OSes other than MS Windows would then suffer the
> >   same selective blindness with regards to open source software.
> 
>   I, too, liked the term "freed software."  While there are many open
> source and free software licenses that are VERY good, and have great
> applications, when I think about free software I instantly think GPL.
> Sorry, it's a habit, and I don't mean to belittle other free software
> licenses. When I think of the BSD license, one software that boils
> my blood is OS X.  I'm really disappointed that a company can make gobs
> of money off the work offered free by people.  While the license itself
> allows for that, it seems morally wrong to me (once again, morals are
> personal).  It almost feels like a slave who was freed during the civil
> war, but then captured and made a slave again (sorry, I listen to a lot
> of reggae).
> 
>   The BSD license is great, and some of my favorite software is licensed
> as such.  But if you're going to make gobs of money, please be kind and
> give credit (in all forms) where credit is due.

I think the only thing that has ensured Apple (the company) has a less
devastatingly oppressive effect on all matters IT than Microsoft is the
smaller scale of its commercial success.  In many ways, Apple's policies
(EULAs, zealous copyright enforcement practices, et cetera) are more
egregious monopolistic than Microsoft's ever were.

On the other hand, I think Apple gets a worse rap for its handling of the
BSD-licensed code basis for MacOS X than it deserves.  Apple, in fact,
attempted to support a DarwinOS project early on, and there was a
deafening lack of interest from the open source community.  It withered
on the vine -- a tremendous shame, from my point of view, because of the
interesting architectural decisions that were made in constructing the
open source core of MacOS X.

Apple returned the code, complete with all changes, to the open source
software community.  All it did not open up to the world at large -- as
far as I'm aware -- is the stuff that was created entirely from scratch
or based solely on code whose copyright was already held by either Apple
or NeXT (which Apple acquired).  While this results in an OS that I'd
rather not use, I think that the manner in which Apple developed MacOS X
is significantly more open and contributory than the way other
proprietary software vendors have developed their own OS offerings.

My ire toward Apple is directed toward other matters, such as making
iTunes incompatible with basically everything else, bricking iPhones for
daring to do something the vendor didn't intend, and so on.

If you know of specifics that contradict my understanding of things, with
regard to how the open source code used as the basis of MacOS X was
handled, please let me know.  I'm open to being educated if I'm mistaken.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Niccolo Machiavelli: "It is a common failing of man not to take account
of tempests during fair weather."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nclug.org/pipermail/nclug/attachments/20080919/1f00ed4b/attachment.pgp>