Re: Linux... OK but definitely second best

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 04:47 PM 7/26/98 -0400, you wrote:

>What Brett never fails to misconstrue or to ignore is that different
>licenses are good for different ends. The GPL and the BSD license don't try
>to accomplish the same goal, so I'm hard pressed to say that one is better
>than the other. 

I disagree. The only difference in the "ends" of the two licenses
is that the GPL seeks to encumber software -- in Richard Stallman's own words,
to make it "less free." The purpose: to make the software the exclusive province 
of one community of developers and prevent others, who are engaged in important
innovation and entrepreneurship, from using it. This is never good.

>It is conceivable that FreeBSD is better than Linux technically, though I
>tend to think the differences are very minor since they are both so much
>better than NT.

I find that it's much better technically. The development process is less
chaotic and far more methodical, and is subject to much more scrupulous
peer review.

>But to claim that FreeBSD is better than Linux because of its license is
>either intentionally misleading or just clumsy. 

Again, I must disagree. The BSD license is better in all cases, since the
GPL's sole purpose is to reserve power for one specific faction (more below).

>I want to insure that the software I give away doesn't get used by
>businesses who don't help me develop it, 

Just because they don't publish the source does NOT mean they're not
helping you to develop. Friendly competition between open source
and commercial software drives both to higher quality levels and
promulgates many good ideas.

>PS -- I suspect, though not really in Brett's case, that many BSD advocates
>are a bit perturbed at what they see as Linux's undeserved success. My motto
>is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." 

To say that the purpose of open source software is to "defeat Microsoft" is 
to cheapen the effort and reduce it to an act of spite. ("If I can't be as rich as
Bill Gates, I don't want him to be able to make money selling software either. 
Nyaah.") Our goal should be to LEVEL the playing field, not to tilt it against
any one player -- even if many people hate that player very much.

The GPL does not do that. Its purpose is essentially to make one faction -- 
the Free Software Foundation -- the "next Microsoft," with undue control over 
the majority of open source software. What's more, it seeks to tilt the playing
field away from ALL commercial software vendors.... Not a good plan. Commercial
and free software can, and should, always coexist.

In an earlier message, Jamie expressed concern that open source software could 
be "monopolized" too. Well, it can -- and the GPL is the mechanism via which this 
particular faction seeks to do it. As the song so brilliantly puts it: "Meet the 
new boss.... Same as the old boss." The "revolutionaries" of the FSF are attempting
to fool us again.

--Brett