On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 22:01:47 +0200
Mattias Andrée <maandree_AT_kth.se> wrote:
Hey Mattias,
> Do you think anyone have choked on pastries before and sued?
> Do most countries actually require that you state that
> your are not responsible for damages causes by something
> you are warning about? The warning is enough here, or at
> least I have never seen a disclaimer, only a warning label,
> and we don't even have translation for ‘disclaimer’.
it's not about countries, but commercial law. If you hit
a judge who is not very smart when it comes to computers
you can have a bad day and actually get sued for such
damages. Why take the risk?
> Nice one, but I think the FreeBSD project does too much
> GPL-bashing. GPL is a good license, at least if you value
> free software higher than open source.
GPL is not about freedom, it's about control. There are
hundreds of examples where companies contributed back
to non-GPL projects because they are happily using it
internally (closed) but still value the open source
character of it.
The GPL still has the mindset of evil corporations of
the 90's. There are still evil players today, but
everbody has to agree that the open source contributions
of numerous companies cannot be ignored.
The level of control the GPL forces on you, even if you
want to write open source software, is insane and
ridiculous. If you look at it closer, the GPL has
the characteristics of cancer or a parasite.
Additionally, by publishing your software under the GPL,
most companies would not use your code and actually
write their own version (which is most likely worse and
full of bugs). This leads to the situation of many
people actually having a really bad time with software,
because the software they buy is actually full of
horrible horrible code that could be avoided.
In theory, the wonderland the GPL proposes "works".
In reality, nowadays, it doesn't make a lot of sense
any more.
Richard Stallman used to be right. The companies of
the 90's were not yet accustomed to an Open Source
environment, but nowadays, his radical claims are
just borderline insane. He for instance calls
OpenBSD a non-free distribution, because they link
to non-free software in the ports tree.
Keep in mind that OpenBSD is completely blob-free,
which is only achieved in the Linux-camp by obscure
distributions nobody uses.
So, the net-gain is this: The super-radical position
of the FSF actually does more damage than it brings
good, as people will never use the obscure FSF-
distributions. They won't listen to rms's ramblings
and songs either, because he still has not understood
the changes the market has undergone in the last decade.
We generally have to ask ourselves the question if
we really should ramp up on the FSF anti-propaganda.
The FSF has the biggest funding of all Open Source
non-profit organizations (afaik), but what do they
achieve relative to their size?
I sometimes regret imagining what the OpenBSD
foundation would do with all that money. They actually
write useful software and make a positive impact.
The FSF's initiatives, especially in regard to
Gender mainstreaming and other marxist ideologies
is, to say it likely, a long reach to computer
science.
Just food for thought, please don't start a discussion
here about this. I don't care abour your opinion that
much anyway.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Thu Jun 02 2016 - 22:20:42 CEST