Recent Posts10751
General Software Discussion / Re: PlayOnLinux might be what the Linux world needs to succeed
« Last post by 40hz on January 23, 2009, 01:20 PM »I guess it all depends on how much to heart you take an insult. I've got enough experience with not being treated nicely that I have become quite adept at ignoring most insults directed at me. "Sticks and stones..."
FOSS and GPL can't restrict freedom. Nobody is required to follow their philosophy or embrace GPL tenets. If you don't like what they're saying or doing you can always go your own way. But if you do buy into their community, you're also expected to play by the rules. Which isn't unreasonable. Because the very same thing applies to almost everything else we do outside the FOSS community as well. Every benefit entails some hassle, no matter where you go.
And even at it's ugliest, the FOSS community realizes (sometimes painfully) that it is a community based on complex social interactions and understandings - where just because you 'own' the bat and ball, doesn't automatically mean you also get to make the rules.
GPL drives a hard bargain: If you release your code under GPL you are relinquishing all downstream control over how it gets used. Once it's out there it's up for grabs.
But being 'up for grabs' comes with a catch for some of the grabbers:
If you use code that was released under GPL in your own project, and (and this is important part) you in turn release it (either as your own code, product, or project) then your work must be given back to the community under the same terms as the GPL code you are using.
Basically, GPL allows for free and unlimited useage - but forbids individual ownership.
And although it seems strange, many historically successful societies (monastic orders, communes, fraternal organizations, etc.) operate on the same principle whereby individual members have access to, but not ownership of, the full resources of the community.
Under this type of arrangement, each individual member is wealthy - even though he or she owns absolutely nothing. (Wow! Heavy!!! ...say it some more, Man...)
Scary stuff if you've been brought up in a laissez-faire capitalist society like many of us have. But it does work.
At least if you let it.
I've compared FOSS to a pot-luck supper. And the more I think about it, the more I think it's a valid metaphor. Still, it's a weird banquet when you look at it. The master chefs are all off in the kitchen arguing. Some of the guests are sharpening knives and glaring at each other. One or two young cooks are holding up their forks and trying to look like they mean it.
And everybody else is just sitting down at the table with a great big spoon, chowing down and enjoying the feast.
FOSS and GPL can't restrict freedom. Nobody is required to follow their philosophy or embrace GPL tenets. If you don't like what they're saying or doing you can always go your own way. But if you do buy into their community, you're also expected to play by the rules. Which isn't unreasonable. Because the very same thing applies to almost everything else we do outside the FOSS community as well. Every benefit entails some hassle, no matter where you go.
And even at it's ugliest, the FOSS community realizes (sometimes painfully) that it is a community based on complex social interactions and understandings - where just because you 'own' the bat and ball, doesn't automatically mean you also get to make the rules.
GPL drives a hard bargain: If you release your code under GPL you are relinquishing all downstream control over how it gets used. Once it's out there it's up for grabs.
But being 'up for grabs' comes with a catch for some of the grabbers:
If you use code that was released under GPL in your own project, and (and this is important part) you in turn release it (either as your own code, product, or project) then your work must be given back to the community under the same terms as the GPL code you are using.
Basically, GPL allows for free and unlimited useage - but forbids individual ownership.
And although it seems strange, many historically successful societies (monastic orders, communes, fraternal organizations, etc.) operate on the same principle whereby individual members have access to, but not ownership of, the full resources of the community.
Under this type of arrangement, each individual member is wealthy - even though he or she owns absolutely nothing. (Wow! Heavy!!! ...say it some more, Man...)
Scary stuff if you've been brought up in a laissez-faire capitalist society like many of us have. But it does work.
At least if you let it.
I've compared FOSS to a pot-luck supper. And the more I think about it, the more I think it's a valid metaphor. Still, it's a weird banquet when you look at it. The master chefs are all off in the kitchen arguing. Some of the guests are sharpening knives and glaring at each other. One or two young cooks are holding up their forks and trying to look like they mean it.
And everybody else is just sitting down at the table with a great big spoon, chowing down and enjoying the feast.
)
)
