[LUAU] Thoughts...

[Chris Wong]

On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Jimen Ching wrote:

> > On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 bbraun at sparcy.synack.net wrote:
> > >  Yup, linux is no longer for the developers. 
> > Yeah. NOticed that today with all the LinuxWorld stuff. IT's becoming
> > mainstream.
> 
> I don't know where you two are coming from.  This statement makes it sound
> like mainstream OS's don't get developed.  I always thought they were
> orthogonal.  Also, I assume when you say _developers_ you mean _OS
> developers_.

I mean more along the lines of the hobbist type of things. Businesses
change things... and in some senses Linux loses it's innocence.

> As for big business doing a Linux fork, this will only happen if there is
> no cooperation between the kernel developers and the commercial company.  
> I don't think this will happen.  Of course, I'm assuming that development
> paths like RTLinux, MKlinux, i8086 Linux, are _not_ forks.  If you have a
> different definition, then all bets are off.

I can see relaxing several restrictions on Ring 0 code to allow WINE
programs to run. Differeing security restrictions to make for easier game
or other application development. Such as Windows.

Basically, turning it into a desktop OS. Maybe we won't have that problem.
maybe not.

I also think X windows needs a serious overhaul. I'll see how XFree86 4.0
turns out. Supposedly, it has a better driver arcitecture.... having users
pick their own Xserver is a bit too complex for say... my mother.

> If you look at any _professional_ society, you'll see that this type of
> knowledge is treated the same, ie. lawyers, architects, engineers, etc.  
> As a computer _professional_ I too have this view, except, instead of
> knowledge of a technique or procedure, I have this view of software.  If
> this is the type of view you have of software, then the GPL is the best
> means to achieve this ideal in the _real world_.  If you can think of a
> better way to achieve this ideal, then please let us all know about it,
> especially RMS and ESR.

I agree here.

> On the other hand, if you believe that knowledge and software should be
> owned/patented/licensed, as some do believe, then the BSD (and friends)
> license is what you want.  Note, I'm not saying BSDL encourages this kind
> of treatment of software.  But it does nothing to discourage it.  I don't
> know how professional societies prevent this type of ownership from
> occuring, but the computer science industry needs this thing, and right
> now, this thing is the GPL.

The GPL is both the antithesis and the strongest supporter of IP.

Just differing philosphies.

> Sorry for getting on this soapbox.  I see too many debates and flame wars
> about these license issues, and the people involved don't seem to
> understand the basic concept behind the licenses.  If you don't agree with
> the goals and ideals, then obviously you won't like the means used to
> achieve those goals.

I don't think we're debating. I respect Rob's views, and I have my own
views. I think I understand what both the GPL and the BSDL is all 
about. Sometimes I'd license for BSD, sometimes I'd license GPL. It all
depends on what I want.

And I'd respect someone who'd license BSD or GPL.

The only problem w/ GPL is its... viral nature. 

I'd rather encourage these types of discussions because they go into the
deeper issues surrounding the software. By all means... keep the
discussion going.

--
     __   __  __________  __
    / /  / / / / __  / / / /  Home Page: http://luau.hi.net
   / /__/ /_/ / /_/ / /_/ /
  /____/\____/_/ /_/\____/  LUAU - Linux Users Anonymous - Hawaii

   To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe luau | mail majordomo at luau.hi.net