[Liverpool] OtherOS-on-Linux or Linux-on-OtherOS? was "Multi-Boot Query"

[Lucy]

2009/3/20 Simon Johnson <simon.johnson at gmail.com>:
[snipped]
>> Surely, if the FSF was against copyright they'd release everything
>> into the public domain rather than use the power of copyright to grant
>> extra freedoms (or restrictions, depending on your views) with their
>> own license.
>
>
> I was pointing out the irony of being a member of the FSF and being against
> copyright. In reality, they care about copyright just as much as Microsoft.
> The only difference is that the FSF wants to curtail different freedoms than
> commerical operations.
>
> The FSF is most definitely not against copyright. It requires it to
> function. Daniel was trying to claim that they were against copyright, I
> just don't see how that could be.

Yes, sorry I misread it the first time. It's Daniel that I disagree
with in this case. Although I still say that if they were against
copyright they'd release into the public domain rather than use
another copyright license - it's a bit irrelevant though.


>
>>
>> It could be said that the GPL increases freedom by forcing the sharing
>> of the code as well as the binary. GPL v BSD is like KDE v Gnome or Vi
>> v Emacs, it's a matter of personal opinion and no amount of shouting
>> is going to change someone's mind.
>
> It is possible to have a debate on all those topics without the thread
> becoming Godwined ;)

Definately

> I think the resolution to all of these debates is one in the same: different
> things for different people.
>
> The GPL optimizes for developers. The BSD optimizes for the users.
>
> OS X is BSD based and is a fantastic product. The BSD license helped users
> get their hands on a well rounded consumer OS.
>
> In constrast, the GPL insures that the code stays free forever so developers
> can hack on it until the end of time.

I disagree with this. Releasing the code benefits both the users and
the developers. If the user has a problem with the software, the code
gives them the freedom to ask a developer to look at the problem and
fix it. They are freed from lock-in in that regard. They are also free
to move from being a user to a developer should they chose.

I would say that the user is getting a bad deal from Apple when they
use OS X. They aren't free to share it, to understand it or to change
it (or to get someone else to change it on their behalf). This is why
I prefer the GPL. I don't think Apple would really lose out if OS X
was released under the GPL (of course that's a different argument
altogether).