3 ms·

Sorry, but that is utter bullshit. Somehow Stallman's importance is somewhere in foggy future with a lot of handwaving and FUD. The real relevance of his ideas

Sorry, but that is utter bullshit. Somehow Stallman's importance is somewhere in foggy future with a lot of handwaving and FUD. The real relevance of his ideas is already in the past. I won't be surprised a bit if at the time you are talking about most OSS will be under MIT/BSD type licenses not GPL.

jacquesm 14y ago
Strong disagree. GPL licensed software is powering an ever increasing fraction of all devices. Far more than I would have ever believed in only a decade ago. There are some interesting network effects at work here. Th e more GPL'd software there is out there the bigger the chunk you have to write yourself (or pay someone to write) would have to be if you want to forego it. Hence Linksys and Android. Those would have never gotten as far as they did without the GPL's software underneath their externally visible features as a foundation to build on. Linux on the desktop may never happen, but linux in your pocket is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Internet killed GPL. AGPL tried to win the Inernet, and the corporations dodged it.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    The internet killed the GPL? Tell that to my home servers.
  - freyrs3 14y ago
    Most of the internet runs on a kernel that is GPL'd.
- millstone 14y ago
  Android could have based itself on a BSD, or even xnu, and done just fine.
- millstone 14y ago
  Android could have based itself on a BSD, or even xnu, and done just fine.
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  Android is an interesting example. Google did use a linux kernel but threw out everything GPL they possibly could above that, to the point of writing their own libc. So I wouldn't really call it an example of GPL winning. It's equally an example of how it was necessary to throw away piles of code because it was GPL's and couldn't be used in commercially compatible way.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    The GPL was never intended to eliminate NIH Syndrome.
g8oz 14y ago
Digital rights/freedoms is becoming more of an issue not less. That makes Stallman more relevant every day.

jacquesm 14y ago

Strong disagree. GPL licensed software is powering an ever increasing fraction of all devices. Far more than I would have ever believed in only a decade ago. There are some interesting network effects at work here. Th e more GPL'd software there is out there the bigger the chunk you have to write yourself (or pay someone to write) would have to be if you want to forego it. Hence Linksys and Android. Those would have never gotten as far as they did without the GPL's software underneath their externally visible features as a foundation to build on. Linux on the desktop may never happen, but linux in your pocket is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point.

Evbn 14y ago
Internet killed GPL. AGPL tried to win the Inernet, and the corporations dodged it.
- rhizome 14y ago
  The internet killed the GPL? Tell that to my home servers.
- freyrs3 14y ago
  Most of the internet runs on a kernel that is GPL'd.
millstone 14y ago
Android could have based itself on a BSD, or even xnu, and done just fine.
millstone 14y ago
Android could have based itself on a BSD, or even xnu, and done just fine.
zmmmmm 14y ago
Android is an interesting example. Google did use a linux kernel but threw out everything GPL they possibly could above that, to the point of writing their own libc. So I wouldn't really call it an example of GPL winning. It's equally an example of how it was necessary to throw away piles of code because it was GPL's and couldn't be used in commercially compatible way.
- rhizome 14y ago
  The GPL was never intended to eliminate NIH Syndrome.

g8oz 14y ago

Digital rights/freedoms is becoming more of an issue not less. That makes Stallman more relevant every day.