[linux-elitists] "Commerce" does not mean "collecting rent from protected monopolies"

Teh Entar-Nick nick at teh.entar.net
Sat Oct 5 15:32:22 PDT 2013


Tony Godshall:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
> Yes, it's essentially the DSFG, generalized to apply beyond Debian in
> the form of the Open Source Initiative, i.e. ESR and Bruce Perens
> Why would it not "still be a thing"?

Re-read Don's snark.  He's not surprised that the OSD exists.  He's
surprised that anyone thinks they can come up with a new license that
both meets it and is sufficiently novel to make the effort worthwhile.

> In particular, "open source" with regards to software, is
> commerce-friendly, while it's not clear that "free software" is, and
> the FSF is often seen as commerce-hostile.  But even the GPL has an
> explicit no further restrictions not even commercial restrictions
> clause, right?

The "hostility to commerce" claim is absurd on its face, given that it
nearly always boils down to "But under these licences my competitors can
engage in commerce using the software!"  

Welcome to free markets, bro.  Sorry we don't protect your aristocratic
holdings for you.  Perhaps you could raise a standing army for that?

-- 
Content-type: lies/all-lies
Content-disposition: blatant


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list