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

Tony Godshall togo at of.net
Tue Oct 8 13:54:59 PDT 2013


On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Teh Entar-Nick <nick at teh.entar.net> wrote:
> 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.

color me corrected

>> 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!"

Re-read my comment.  I'm saying the GPL is seen as anti-commerce, not
that it *is*, though there's no doubt in my mind its *author* can be
rather hostile to commerce.

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

[jim thompson]
>Send in the clowns...

Send in the clowns indeed.

t


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list