Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:57:33 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Jordan Hubbard on Darwin Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20001119182538.043874b0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20001119050641.A4791@mithrandr.moria.org> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001118142924.00cb6850@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20001118142924.00cb6850@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Neil: There are a lot of interesting points in your message, so pardon me for having taken a while to respond. At 08:06 PM 11/18/2000, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: >Ok Brett, we'll just force Jordan to lie next time. Thanks for the >advice. Here we were innocently thinking that it was good to tell the >truth, and evil to lie and obscure the truth, but luckily you're here to >set us right. I would not advocate lying; that is a trait of both the FSF and Microsoft, and FreeBSD should not practice it. On the other hand, active advocacy of software which is licensed unethically and which is part of an agenda that includes wiping out the BSDs is not good either. >While I dislike bash, many others don't, Fine. But it is not appropriate for a leader of a BSD development project to advocate the use of GPLed software. >and GNU tar is pretty much standard for a Unix system. If GNU tar is a "standard," it is through the negligence of the BSD world. We must fight this and develop equivalent or superior BSD-licensed software. If we do not, we are dependent upon an organization which would like nothing better than to destroy us! (And could, easily, by changing the next version of the GPL.) > If they weren't there, I'm sure most would >complain, and if they are there, that's good for OS X. In this case, >one isn't there, being complained about, and one is, being complimented >on. > >I'd much rather see Jordan appearing in these articles with on-topic >beliefs about his favourite shell and how useful tar is for unpacking >tarballs than you espousing a "The FSF is evil and we should put them >down where we can". The FSF is seeking to put *us* down. Advocating their software advances that cause, and Jordan should not do that. I don't think he realizes just how much harm this does. >While I don't agree with Eric Raymond on all things, he makes one good >argument. People don't really respond to good/evil. They respond to >things that make a difference in their role and life. I disagree. The Linux/GPL crowd has gotten a very STRONG response by branding Microsoft as "evil." Interestingly, many of the open source projects we've seen today have been motivated by anger. This includes not only Stallman's work (originally motivated by a misguided, now 20+ year old grudge against Symbolics, Inc.) but also OpenBSD. Do not discount or dismiss anger as a source of motivation in the open source world. It is, in fact, a prime mover. > Talking about >good, evil, and the moral implications of supporting the GNU project by >just using a product of theirs just isn't something that matters in the >lives of most of those readers. Again, not so. If you doubt this, just read Slashdot! > If you hit a BSD developer, you might >get a few points, but if you hit your average user (Linux, bash, emacs, >whatever) you're just losing major cred for us or having no effect. The ones who see the big picture, such as Tom Christiansen, DO understand. (I met Tom for the first time this summer in Boulder, on the Pearl Street Mall, and was very impressed with him. He has a short attention span, but I can easily forgive that because I do too. And he's absolutely as sharp as a tack.) >My thanks, as ever, to Jordan for a well-controlled and interesting >interview It was a review, not an interview. >that has probably already got FreeBSD more positive attention >than your rants on licensing. Your (Brett's) articles in boardwatch and >other places, that don't refer to the evil of the FSF, easily have won >FreeBSD more friends than your moral licensing dilemna posts. You don't see my mail, but I get a LOT of positive feedback when I write about the GPL. One recent letter said: "Thank you. Before I read your article, I took the GPL preamble at face value. Now that I know what is going on, I see that the GPL does the opposite of what it claims. The code is free to users but not to programmers and that is very ungood. I am using the Perl Artistic License on my next project." >Your posts about the evils of the FSF, GPL, and GNU products have >lost FreeBSD more users and credibility than your articles, though. Actually, the only thing that has cost FreeBSD credibility is when people WITHIN the FreeBSD community bash me for those postings. They see this as portending a lack of unity and of perspective. Surely the BSD community should be unanimous in opposing a group that seeks to destroy it and the good it has done! Most of the people who comment to me about this do not understand why the BSD community doesn't link arms and oppose the FSF. They see this as a sign that the BSDers are so much far removed from reality -- isolated in their academic ivory towers, as it were -- that they can't even perceive a direct threat. We really need to unify in opposition to the GPL and purge it from the code base. Yes, including the toolchain. (I understand that Borland C/C++ for Linux is now available for free; perhaps we can port the compiler and RTL.) --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20001119182538.043874b0>