Picture contributed by twitter
"IF you want freedom don't follow Linus Torvalds," Stallman was sort of quoted as arguing in a rather sensationalist headline from an IDG interview a year and a half ago. But Torvalds is hardly the problem at all. His views may not be as 'strong' as Stallman's, but Torvalds is not the enemy.
“Steve was daemonising freedom at the time, turning it into an argument of cost.”It therefore becomes important to identify the real ferocious forces which disseminate tools that separate people. They restrict collaboration/sharing and in some circumstances stir up infighting [1, 2, 3].
So who are these people or forces which compare collaboration to evilness? In reference to "Linux" (meaning GNU/Linux in this context), Steve Ballmer once said that "it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it’s free." Steve was daemonising freedom at the time, turning it into an argument of cost. Another Steve, Steve Wozniak, was claimed to have slammed Free software last year. A third Steve, Steve Jobs, has never shown much affinity for Free software either, with the exception of use (BSD) where freedom is defined differently. In fact, iPhone engineers wanted to pick Linux for the iPhone but it was Jobs who resisted it* and intercepted the idea because Linux is free as in Freedom (GPL) -- the same licence that Gates insists "we disagree with".
Further to this post from two days ago and the many supportive references, it is essential to remember that Apple is now ruining Linux-based gadgets using patents. In regards to Apple's behaviour in general, opines one blogger:
These moves suggest to me that Apples fears competition, and I'm wondering why.
Apple Computer has a beautiful side to its operations. That's the side which comes out with some of the sexiest design in the tech world, the side which crafts those breathtaking interfaces, the side which gives you those applications that a five-year-old finds easy to master in the course of a morning's exploration.
[...]
The argument runs thus: if I'm doing something that doesn't cut into my profits, I must be doing the right thing.
But even Apple should realise that people will ultimately come to the conclusion that golden handcuffs are also a means of restricting choice.
Comments
max stirner
2009-02-21 19:00:11
Bob
2009-02-21 23:52:42
Roy Schestowitz
2009-02-21 23:55:15
Bob
2009-02-22 00:31:27
In other words, I do agree with your initial assertion that liberally licensed free software has a different definition to copyleft free software - one has a laissez-faire approach to freedom while the other has a rule-by-law approach to freedom.
Shane Coyle
2009-02-22 02:31:09
I'm not trying to pick a fight, just adding to the discussion....
Roy Schestowitz
2009-02-22 02:34:36
Maybe they are jealous or afraid of GNU/GPL whereas Apple does not intimidate them.
Shane Coyle
2009-02-22 02:40:52
Shane Coyle
2009-02-22 02:50:18
Some developers have faith in the goodness of human nature, the rest use the GPL (or worse). ;^ )
Yuhong Bao
2009-05-05 06:55:41
Yuhong Bao
2009-05-05 07:01:50