pksadiq

22 ms·

211.
by pksadiq 11y ago
> TL;DR: Companies don't hate "giving users more freedom" More freedom doesn't simply means that users can change the code. But, they can also use the code, modify, and redistribute without fear about patents, if the
212.
by pksadiq 11y ago
Its a fact that Linus doesn't even care about open source[0]. Then how will he be caring about software freedom? Hope, someday, we shall have GNU Hurd ready. Anyway, GNU guix is getting better. [0] http://www.techrepublic.
213.
by pksadiq 11y ago
Some thoughts: Most of the companies ship older pieces of software for one important reason: They need to avoid GPL/LGPL/AGPL version 3. Version 3 of GNU GPL gives users more freedom which companies hate. For GPLv2 the companies h
214.
by pksadiq 11y ago
Hm... An article with no concrete proof. Then, here is my story about Apple vs FBI (sceptical too). FBI (really, NSA) knows of only one phone (company) that is easily crackable, and its IPhone. So Why a sue? This has to be taken utmost care
215.
Debian GNU/Linux Is Switching to Firefox from Iceweasel(glandium.org)
3 points by pksadiq 11y ago|0 comments
216.
by pksadiq 11y ago
> MIT/Apache licensed projects makes you feel that the less open licenses aren't as bad as Stallman says.. This is a slow process. We won't agree the problems with MIT/Apache until something really bad happens. Say fo
217.
by pksadiq 11y ago
Making something open source != making something GPL. .Net is licensed under MIT/X11 I think. If someone is licensing something under GNU GPL, they are also giving away their intellectual property/patent rights (or what ever they