-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Howdy, Just going through old mail and notice this. :-)
I'm not sure he's a person you would want to take business advise from.
Well, he has been quite effective in changing business plans in the past (think Apple, TrollTech, and perhaps Mozilla/Netscape). When he speaks, people do listen.
As for his "incisive analysis": he complained about per-seat licensing. Noone has been able to show anywhere where it says UL will have per-seat, and in fact between the FAQs statement that it will be free for non-commercial use and SuSEs denial that anything like that is planned, it seems to me that RMS has been talking too much to TRB and DEP. Stallman's comment was in an interview with dep, and I can imagine how that went
Cool - I get to be known by initials now? I've always wanted that. ;-) Seriously, your point here over looks several things: 1.) Stallman issued the statement before the interview. 2.) I believe the interview you are referring to was the one I did on OfB.biz a few weeks ago at http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=125 . For the record, the question and answer was: - ----------------- OfB: Speaking of enterprise computing, in a written statement last week, you compared the licensing of the new UnitedLinux group to that of Windows in that it restricts a user's freedom. Would you like to expand a bit more on this? RMS: We developed the GNU operating system, a compatible replacement for Unix, so users could be free to share and change it. Unix was not free software; it was available under restrictive licenses. It was not unusual for it to be licensed per computer, or even according to the number of users who could log in. In 1991, the last gap in GNU was the kernel; Linus Torvalds then wrote a free kernel, Linux, and released it under the GNU General Public License. Adding Linux to GNU produced a free operating system, the GNU/Linux system. (Many users believe that the whole system is Linux, and the companies that package the system spread this mistake.) As GNU/Linux became popular, it developed a reputation as a powerful, reliable system. Thousands and then millions of users adopted it, often for its practical benefits alone, without paying any mind to the freedom it also gave them. Companies began to package and redistribute GNU/Linux, which was good; but they also began to add non-free software to the system, which defeats its purpose. Today all the commercial packagers of GNU/Linux add non-free software. Several of them--with the notable exception of Red Hat and Mandrake--develop non-free software to add to GNU/Linux. Caldera has been one of the worst offenders. It is still possible to obtain a completely free version of GNU/Linux, but you need to know where to look and you need to think about what you're doing. "UnitedLinux" carries this regression one step further with its "per seat" licensing. Users of that GNU/Linux distribution will be as restricted as if they were using Unix, or Windows. In fact, Caldera cannot apply that restrictive license to the whole system. Most of the programs are licensed under the GNU General Public License, which protects the freedom of every user and makes it illegal to add any restrictions. I trust that Caldera knows better than to try to impose a "per seat license" on these programs. However, some parts of the system, although normally available as free software, have lax licenses that allow middlemen to impose their own restrictions. Caldera may use those points of vulnerability. It can also add non-free programs to the system. Even though much of the system will remain free software in a legal sense, practically speaking the users are likely to believe it is not. Many people call the whole system "Linux" because they don't know it is a mistake; they are following others who are misinformed. In the case of Caldera, I suspect this error is intentional. Users who know that the system which is offered to them with a "per seat license" is really a version of GNU, and that we developed it so they could have freedom, might question whether Caldera is really treating them properly. They might start to value their own freedom and reject the perverse system which is neither united nor Linux. Caldera probably finds it safer [to] teach users that the system is Linux and that it was developed by an apolitical college student "just for fun". - ---------------- In other words, my initial question was based on a statement issued by RMS. Further more, I did not imply per-seat licensing, but was targeting UL's possibly illegal restrictions on binary distribution of the software in their upcoming package. However, Re: Per-seat, considering UnitedLinux will be what SLES is based on, and SLES already has per-seat licensing, one could fairly say at least UnitedLinux from SuSE and Caldera will have per-seat licensing. :-)
resulting headline: RMS says UL's per-seat licensing is horrible
That's the normal standard of "journalism", so I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Read over it before you attack my journalism, I assure you their was nothing tricky going on in the interview. -Thus spake TRB. (I love that! I really love it, thanks Anders - I've finally become known by my initials - hehehe.) :-) /me is having too much fun. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler tbutler@uninetsolutions.com Universal Networks http://www.uninet.info Christian Portal and Search Tool: http://www.faithtree.com Open Source Migration Guide: http://www.ofb.biz ============= "Christian Web Services Since 1996" ============== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9Mu0RK37Cns9gJ0gRAllQAJ90bgxpauw7Vpz93qCSacfmfUAGHACfeABR HDPerjwQ0OBwofmpPumtwzQ= =CwNs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----