Linux Kernel Source

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

So anyone that isn't Crusader Rabbit striving to rid the world of GPL
violations is beneath your threshold?

No. Nice try, but no. If you want to know my reasons, you can read the
last half dozen or so interactions I had with the man, or you can ask
without the childish hare references and the like and I will be happy to
explain.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Unfortunately that is not and will never be true. That is not
just for Open Source.

You have my pity.

 

[Syren Baran]

Unfortunately that is not and will never be true. That is not just for
Open Source.

Well, being an open source guy, well mostly, i do have to ask the question.
Having heard both that open source developers "are a bunch of dirty
communist pigs" and "an idealistic and altrustic community" i do
question myself, am i a good guy?
I mean, i neither hate MS nor love IBM.
I can even proove the former, i kind o like their public relations guy,
as seen, e.g. in

.
I´m sure the linux foundation could get a job for him should MS go bankrupt.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I take it you're blissfully unaware of the cases where exactly that has
happened. Just FYI, there's this nifty new technology for following news
relevant to the IT sector (among others): it's called the "internet".
You should look into it sometime.

It is so funny watching some idiot gmailer, who probably first picked up
a computer a few years ago, going all sarcastic on somebody like Chris,
who just happens to be telling the truth (something grearly frowned upon
in this NG).

 

[Richard Bos]

I consider everything that is not "open source" to be "closed source"
the same way that doors that are not "open" are "closed".

Excuse me, but it sounds to me that you consider everything that is not
"Open[tm] Source(R) (This term joint copyright (c) RMS, ESR, and don't
you dare use the words in their normal English meaning)" to be "Closed
Source [Eeeeeviiiiiil]". As long as you FOSSils refuse to admit that
there are shades of open source just as there are shades of closed
sourse, and that the two not only touch in the middle but overlap to a
good extent, I cannot take your standpoint seriously.

Richard

 

[Richard Tobin]

Excuse me, but it sounds to me that you consider everything that is not
"Open[tm] Source(R) (This term joint copyright (c) RMS, ESR, and don't
you dare use the words in their normal English meaning)"

I don't think that RMS uses the term "open source", except perhaps
to criticise it.

-- Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Excuse me, but it sounds to me that you consider everything that is not
"Open[tm] Source(R) (This term joint copyright (c) RMS, ESR, and don't
you dare use the words in their normal English meaning)"

I don't think that RMS uses the term "open source", except perhaps
to criticise it.

Oh, right - he's the one who has trademarked "Fre[e|a] Software", isn't
he?

Same difference.

Richard

 

[Morris Dovey]

So I was right to question the size of code needed to run an OS. (And I
thought drivers and things were outside the kernel.) That's reassuring to
know for some reason.

Question everything. The qualifications for 'operating system'
have been changing since the beginning - and have a lot to do
with the service expectations of the entire computing community.
I've used "operating systems" with a <512 byte resident
supervisor, a 1K byte CLI, and (originally) tiny collection of
small utilities. As people demanded more services, the code
tended to grow...

 

[Michal Nazarewicz]

I consider everything that is not "open source" to be "closed source"
the same way that doors that are not "open" are "closed".

Excuse me, but it sounds to me that you consider everything that is not
"Open[tm] Source(R) (This term joint copyright (c) RMS, ESR, and don't
you dare use the words in their normal English meaning)" to be "Closed
Source [Eeeeeviiiiiil]". As long as you FOSSils refuse to admit that
there are shades of open source just as there are shades of closed
sourse, and that the two not only touch in the middle but overlap to a
good extent, I cannot take your standpoint seriously.

Where I've said that there are no shades of OS and CS? Sure there
are. There is a GPL which requires that all software based on it is
GPL. There is an LGPL which allows software that use it to be non-GPL and
non-LGPL. There is a new BSD license which allows software to be turned
into proprietary. And there is Public Domain (which is FOSS as well)
where one can do anything he wants.

But no, I don't agree that those two terms overlap. Open Source/Free
Software is when person who receives the application gets its source
code and can do with it (almost) everything s/he likes[1]. If there are
some restrictions (ie. you may not use it if you are an abortion clinic,
you may modify source code but cannot resell it, etc) it is Closed
Source. This does not mean that you don't actually get the source code.

________________
[1] Ie. the only possible restrictions are that one must preserve
credits and that after redistributing software must be FOSS as well.