[CS-FSLUG] OT: RED HAT EXEC CRITICIZES SOFTWARE PATENTS, MICROSOFT

[Don Parris]

On 4/21/05, Frank Bax <fbax at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> At 07:21 PM 4/20/05, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> 
> >>Is this not a bit two-faced coming from companies who include non-free
> >>software in their distros?  Just curious.
> >
> >         Last I checked, Red Hat does not... RHEL and Fedora are both
> > based on software with Free Software licenses, afaik. At any rate, one
> > can complain about software patents and Microsoft without being 100% Free
> > Software -- those are rather polar extremes in many ways.
> 
> I remember reading (on some other list) that several Linux distros signed
> agreements with Intel (and other vendors) to allow redistribution non-free
> firmware for wireless chipsets (like Centrino).  Apparently FC did not
> follow other Linux distros on this issue.  Hopefully, they take the same
> stand with other non-free software.
>          http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/5690
> The firmware must be downloaded directly from Intel's site during installation.
> 
> 
> 
I've discovered that Ubuntu does make non-free software available, but
does leaves no doubt that users are responsible for complying with the
licenses terms and that they will not support it.  Xandros and
Linspire (from what I do know) both use non-free packages in their
distros.  When I first got into SUSE, I was unaware that Yast was
non-free (but not anymore).  Even if it was, I didn't understand
enough about GNU philosophy for it to make any real difference.  For
me, now that I know what I do, the primary reason for migrating is
freedom - not money.  If we focus on the gratis, we lose sight of the
freedom, which was the goal of the GNU project to begin with.

<begin rant>
Now, some consider RMS an "extremist", while Linux Today reports that
people (namely developers) are migrating toward the non-commercial
distros (more about money than freedom).  I think many have confused
libre and gratis till they don't know what they stand for.  All they
care about is technology itself.  As long as they can access it, and
it's high quality, that's really all they care about.  But alas, that
means we've lost sight of the original goal - freedom.  It's like
joining a church, and then steering people from salvation (the goal)
to methods of providing human services (the technology).

I think many have lost sight of the goal.  Ultimately, what RMS calls
sharing, the scripture refers to as love.  RMS may well be spiritually
blind.  That does not mean that he is not made in the image of God,
and thus is incapable of determining right/wrong.  He merely lacks the
spiritual insight provided by the Holy Spirit - something all of us
should pray he receives.  Only then could he have eyes to see the
Lord's Christ.

By releasing software under free/open terms, I am demonstrating agape
toward my fellow man.  By not doing so, I decline the opportunity to
demonstrate agape where technology is concerned.  Why should
technology be treated any different than food?  Why should we insist
that the words of a license have no application to Scripture?  I
cannot force anyone to do anything they do not wish to do.  However, I
can point out that, where a license prohibits me from sharing (or
modifying, and giving back to the community), I don't believe I should
use that license.

Mind you, some have proposed a "Christian" software license based on
the current FOSS offerings.  I don't believe that would be useful. 
After all, do not the GPL and the Open Software Licenses already make
provision for the sharing?
</end rant>

Don
-- 
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
Free software is like God's love - 
you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!