Talk:Consumerium Software License: Difference between revisions
m (moving this to Talk:GFDL) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We should work on this more. [[GPL]] is starting to die as a basis for seriuos development. First SCO takes off the gloves and declares GPL unenforceable and unconstitutional, then Redhat abandons the desktop publicly and Suse gets bought by Novell, and Szulik announces that Linux desktop is not ready for prime time and won't be for years, and suggests Windows. All within a few days. | |||
The "free software movement" had it coming, after years of being so ideological and ignoring end user problems. A viable model of software development must replace both free software and open source, which are motivated ''only'' by a concern of the ''developers'' not the users: remaining free to hack anything into unusability. The only way to compete with Microsoft is a better consortium model properly organized without the ideological Cold War of free software vs. open source (which is communism vs. capitalism). At present the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give stuff away free, since MS will happily undercut any other price. What SHOULD be free to the end user is a way to figure out whether they are supporting their own values or not. But no one has a right to features or support, as the death of the [[GPL]] world seems to be proving. | |||
Revision as of 18:26, 7 November 2003
We should work on this more. GPL is starting to die as a basis for seriuos development. First SCO takes off the gloves and declares GPL unenforceable and unconstitutional, then Redhat abandons the desktop publicly and Suse gets bought by Novell, and Szulik announces that Linux desktop is not ready for prime time and won't be for years, and suggests Windows. All within a few days.
The "free software movement" had it coming, after years of being so ideological and ignoring end user problems. A viable model of software development must replace both free software and open source, which are motivated only by a concern of the developers not the users: remaining free to hack anything into unusability. The only way to compete with Microsoft is a better consortium model properly organized without the ideological Cold War of free software vs. open source (which is communism vs. capitalism). At present the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give stuff away free, since MS will happily undercut any other price. What SHOULD be free to the end user is a way to figure out whether they are supporting their own values or not. But no one has a right to features or support, as the death of the GPL world seems to be proving.