Posted by: Anonymous
on February 03, 2008 06:23 AM
Your article does a good job of pointing out the basic positions, but you've misunderstood the motives of at least one of the parties involved. The "Free" software fanatics have no interest whatsoever in finding a happy medium. They will crusade unfalteringly for their definition of "Freedom", at the expense of community, functionality, or interoperability.
Interestingly, in forgetting that code is created for the purpose of serving its users, and forcing their myopic interpretation of what "freedom" should be onto everyone who would use their code (via the GPLv3), they've begun using the same tactics of control as the proprietary software world. The only difference is they impose control over their supposedly "free" code for the promotion of an ideology, at least Microsoft is honest about it, and controls their software for profit.
The GPLv2 enforces no such control over usage, and is a truly free license. Fortunately, it's still a viable and popular license. There is no happy middle ground for the FSF and their more rabid supporters. Hopefully they will reach a point at which they remember the purpose of truly free code - to serve it's users, without imposed controls or restrictions on how it may be used. In the mean time, there is no one community - the designation is more accurately F/OSS. Two distinct communities separated by a chasm of idealistic narcissism vs. practical and honest freedom.