|
Home > Archive > Linux/Unix > July 2001 > Is the GPL Socialist?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Is the GPL Socialist?
|
|
|
|
|
| Interesting point of view . . . however, we could just as eaily call science socialist as well, since the individual companies that sponsor research can't patent their knowledge to make sure others can't use it. Actually, I am not a huge fan of the more militant Open Source guys like Richard Stallman or Eric Raymond. They are a bit too high-handed about their opinions and do not leave room for anyone else's ideas. I think it's perfectly OK to give away programs or license them under the GPL if that is your wish or if you think it will aid your business goals. But unlike the FSF's point of view, I do not think this should be forced upon anyone. So if a company's interests are served adequately by closed source, I see nothing wrong with it, as long as the copyrights don't disregard the interests of the consumer totally or use the proprietary model in order to stifle competition, as it is often used to do. | |
| ccieToBe 2001-06-19, 8:03 am |
| I wasn't saying that the GPL's socialist. I'm actually annoyed at M$'s suggestion that it is, and thought this article did a good job of debunking M$'s argument, then turning it against M$. Here's the opening paragraph.
"This article examines the functioning of the GPL from the viewpoint of Capitalism, It does so with reference to the writings of one of the most hardline capitalists of all-Ayn Rand. And finally it concludes that the GPL operates along purely capitalist principles, and that the real enemies of Capitalism are those who seek to outlaw the GPL." | |
|
| Well, I don't think it is, as long as it isn't forced on anyone. It's silly for people to say otherwise as long as there is noone forcing the issue, and I don't think there should be. When you get people pushing it too hard, you don't allow it to fall or stand upon it's own merits, which is what I see as the FSF's main fault. I rarely have probs with open software, so the "bazaar style" paradigm can't be all that bad. Making it seem like some evil attempt to undermine the economy is somewhat much though. I think tactics like this are used mainly because of the fear of trying to compete with free software that will effectively kill any monopoly that any business might try to create. | |
| ccieToBe 2001-06-19, 9:14 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Randy
...I think tactics like this are used mainly because of the fear of trying to compete with free software that will effectively kill any monopoly that any business might try to create.
Exactly. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by ccieToBe
Exactly.
. . . on the other hand, Linus' dad was a communist.  | |
| neuralfx 2001-07-01, 5:51 pm |
| heh. sorry, think the sub speaks for it self. its not like open-source is some communist ideology and we should we fear pinko's running down our streets heh. seriously, its not very comparable. in one sense it is an interesting point to note that open-source may be inherently unprofitable.. but look at embedded linux.. anyone ever heard of TiVo? well anyway.. its software not a government ideology heh..
-neural | |
|
| Well, I know it makes some people nervous the way that some of the open-source advocates seem to think that ALL software should be free . . . I do not agree with that perspective. To me, the decision should be placed firmly in the hands of the creator (as long as this doesn't forego protection for the consumer), but speaking from my own perspective, I almost always go with the free stuff if there is a choice. |
|
|
|
|