[Wolves] FOSS, who's it for? Us or them?

[Christopher Fox]

On 9/25/08, dick_turpin <dick_turpin at archlinux.us> wrote:

> I have no idea what the writer of the code wanted or expected to be
> honest talking about licenses and what they do or do not allow just
> clouds this discussions there is no written down moral code its a
> thing/idea "It was morally right to do that" but seeing as we cant tear
> ourselves away from Licenses and discuss morals maybe the GPL (Or
> whatever Lic is for FOSS) should be torn up and some sort of License
> created that says "If you use my code you must create a Linux or Open
> Source version 1st"

Okay, getting away from licences for a minute (because I seem to be
repeating myself):

Why should a FOSS project be forced to release a specific Linux
version first? Would we still be having this argument if Google had
released binaries of Chrome for Windows and FreeBSD? or Haiku?
Solaris?

And let's say, for argument's sake, we make up such a rule. Which
distro(s) should it be compiled for? RedHat? Debian? Gentoo? Arch?
Slackware? $someStupidlySmallNicheDistro?

And, going back to licences for just a moment,

> maybe the GPL (Or
> whatever Lic is for FOSS) should be torn up and some sort of License
> created that says "If you use my code you must create a Linux or Open
> Source version 1st"

Why can't we have both? We already have the GPL (in its many
versions), the LGPL, the Mozilla licence, the various BSD licences,
etc etc etc.That way, developers can pick the one that represents
their expectations, instead of having your moral code thrust upon
them.

Chris
-- 
And now, for something completely different...
chris at robotninja.net