Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 23:40:23 +0530 (IST) From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> Cc: advocacy@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: RE: Some thoughts on advocacy (was: Slashdot ftp.cdrom.com upgra Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905022333100.7536-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.990502194901.asmodai@wxs.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> But fair is fair, both advocates tend to border on the brink of zealotry, > but isn't that always the point in advocacy? Advocacy always assumes one > product is better in a certain aspect than the other product... Fine when you're talking about the product. My point was: try to boost your product without putting down the other. (Linux advocates have the same problem in pushing linux over windows: if you badmouth windows, the typical happy windows user won't listen. Though the *unhappy* one probably will. Keep in mind that there are very few unhappy linux users, so the FreeBSD problem is much more difficult.) But to push this "my product is better than yours" thing to the licensing is surely going a bit too far... Historical note: the GPL was created by one Richard Stallman, who believes that any restrictions on software modification/redistribution is unethical. From that point of view, the GPL is the best solution and a phenomenally successful one. So to blast the GPL for being business-unfriendly just doesn't make sense. Besides, businesses do make money from GPL'd code -- Cygnus, Red Hat, etc, etc -- and Stallman himself is certainly all for it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9905022333100.7536-100000>