This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Re:Clarification.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 26, 2007 07:15 AM
> It is not a sensible idea to base a product on philosophy that is attached to it.

On the contrary, this is a very good marketing idea. So good it has a name: brand recognition.

> People will want to use it without philosophy.

Do you realize you're presenting a philosophical assertion?

> Majority of people live their whole lives without or with very little philosophy.

This, in itself, is a philosophy of living. People argue about how this is sensible.

> In general, people are driven by interests, not by philosophy.

I wouldn't say that, considering the massive success religions have had.

> There is a question that nobody have ever answered me: is GNU software for the faithful only, or for everybody ?

I can answer this. Usage is for everyone, (re)distribution is only for those who abide by GPL requirement of source bundling.

> If the license are violated, why does FSF not go after violators with legal action, as it has done before?

It does go after. There have been successful suits about this and companies have been forced to comply.

> Or FSF is acting like Microsoft here? Bill Gates said about illegal copies of Microsoft software in China : "If they steal, make sure that they steal from us".

Sometimes means are not enough to define evil or good. Intentions and final outcome are also important.

FSF aims at knowledge sharing; OTOH, let's say M$ doesn't want to share its money, ok?

#

Return to Brazil's FOSS utopia image at risk