guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (Really) Free Software future


From: Alexander Vdolainen
Subject: Re: (Really) Free Software future
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 21:32:13 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1

Hi,

On 10/14/19 9:16 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:

(skipped)

> For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
> using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
> to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
> and systemd are certainly not lock-in.

I'm afraid but I cannot agree with that. Actually with systemd design
you have 'lock-in', because in some cases you need to modify a source
code to support systemd (or you will face something like this -
https://superuser.com/questions/1372963/how-do-i-keep-systemd-from-killing-my-tmux-sessions).
Also, a lot of system daemons has eaten by systemd (and to make it works
some forks were created like eudev).
Finally, correct me if I wrong, but GNOME 3.8 and newer requires systemd
to run, it's a lock-in isn't it ?

> 
> A non-commercial clause is directly opposed to the four freedoms (in
> particular freedom 0).  In fact a number of otherwise-could-be-free
> software licenses have been deemed non-free solely for this type of
> thing.  Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "non-commercial
> clause".
> 
> I don't think it's appropriate to state that software that doesn't
> follow KISS can be considered non-free... how does one even measure
> that?  By whose definition is software not "simple"?  Many people would
> suggest that GCC, glibc, Emacs, or other flagship GNU packages are not
> "KISS".  Similarly, there's no concrete definition of "*NIX principles"
> that one can use.  Who will decide?  Again many people would suggest
> Emacs, with its "editor as an OS interface" construction, doesn't
> follow *NIX principles.  I don't see how these criteria can be used to
> measure software freedoms, other than by each person individually
> according to their own tastes.
> 
> As with all free software, if someone feels that some software is not
> KISS (enough) or not *NIX (enough), they can avail themselves of their
> four freedoms and modify that software as they like, and distribute it
> to anyone else they like.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Alexander Vdolainen,
Evil contractor.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]