Yes, I'm sure IBM has adopted Linux because of its superiority just as car manufacturers adopted vinyl over leather because of its obvious superiority. As for GCC being worse, it's probably because it doesn't do its job as well as other compilers.
Let's see. Microsoft gives away software with restrictive licenses, but they aren't selfless, while developers of GPL software give away software with restrictive licenses, which is a selfless act? Maybe it's me, but a selfless act would be to give away the software without forcing users of it into a licensing scheme not of their choice, but I guess Linux fanatics feel that freedom is being told what to use. This is why Linux zealots are not taken seriously, especially when they act as if the GPL offers more "freedom" than the BSD license or even releasing the software to the public domain (which is the most selfless act of all).

Messy,

you are again showing off your ignorance, and that doesn't help your argument one bit. You are STILL unwilling to back up your claim about the GCC with any kind of evidence and you now seem to be eager to show that you don't know anything about Free software licensing either.

The GPL does _not_ in any way restrict what you can do with the software. It allows you to do ANYTHING you like. It just doesn't allow you to add your own restrictions. Many people don't seem to know that. The GPL is similar to a right to own a gun (to keep it simple). It means that I can own a gun, even if the same law forbids me to restrict anybody else's right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that my right to own a gun is limited in any way, it merely means that neither is anybody else's.

The plain fact is that Microsoft, in the case of some of their software, "produce" a permission which they give to me for free, while the FSF produce software which they give to me for free.

It's the difference between having permission to use the neighbour's hammer (in the way the neighbour wants me to use it) and having my own hammer (and being allowed to do with it whatever I want).

And until you learn these things and actually read the licences (you will be surprised that the GPL really doesn't stop you from doing anything with the software covered by it), there is really no argument; but merely your unconfirmed allegations and assertions and your unproven statement about the GCC being inferior to other compiler collections or C compilers you don't care to mention.

The GPL does _not_ in any way restrict what you can do with the software. It allows you to do ANYTHING you like. It just doesn't allow you to add your own restrictions. Many people don't seem to know that. The GPL is similar to a right to own a gun (to keep it simple). It means that I can own a gun, even if the same law forbids me to restrict anybody else's right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that my right to own a gun is limited in any way, it merely means that neither is anybody else's.

I'm sorry, but to most people, giving somebody something without any restrictions or obligations (i.e. something in the public domain and to a lesser extent the BSD license) tends to offer the receiver more freedom than giving somebody something that has restrictions should the receiver use it in one of his own projects. To claim that the GPL offers more freedom than the BSD license or public domain because it restricts the use of its software is doublespeak, which is where the communism of GNU comes into play.

Messy,

strawman! I didn`t say that the GPL gave the user more freedom than the BSD licence. In fact, and I agree with Richard Stallman here, I think both licences give the user the same freedoms. The difference is not about what you can do with the software, but about what you can demand of others.

Away you go again Messy , ranting and raving, you obviously have little understanding of the Computer industry, and its history, the whole industry has been build on contribtuions from all sectors, many good programs have come from boths sides and so has crap, however you statements show how little you have to do with open source or how little you understand how much it has contributed to the software industry in general, I should add that I use software from both and to give a comparison, Mozilla V IE6, try them both and you be the judge. Without these people beavering away just as other young developers have done in the past we will miss out on important inovation, no matter wh ends up with it. It also encourages competition, which in turn forces all produces of software to stay on their toes, so generally as I said, open source or not , all are contributors are an important part of development, growth and inovation in this industry. I say good on all contributors, and have no problems with paying for qualit software, and if this is done by donation on a voluntary basis, when I feel the project deserves it, or for a license fee, it dosen't matter as long as I get good software, that works and does what I want, I really don't understand why people are so down on open source,, maybe it is a bit like being scared of Muslims, lack of understanding.......

strawman! I didn`t say that the GPL gave the user more freedom than the BSD licence. In fact, and I agree with Richard Stallman here, I think both licences give the user the same freedoms. The difference is not about what you can do with the software, but about what you can demand of others.

I guess saying that it allows you to do anything you want isn't implying that it gives the user the freedom to do anything he wants with the software, but I'll ignore that. However, to suggest that the GPL offers the same freedoms as the BSD is ludicrous. I always thought selflessness didn't involve demands of others, but if that's the case, then how isn't the free software that Microsoft provides selfless? I guess I'd have to be a Linux zealot with an agenda to believe that the GPL provides as much freedom to the user as the BSD license or the public domain.

Away you go again Messy , ranting and raving, you obviously have little understanding of the Computer industry, and its history, the whole industry has been build on contribtuions from all sectors, many good programs have come from boths sides and so has crap, however you statements show how little you have to do with open source or how little you understand how much it has contributed to the software industry in general, I should add that I use software from both and to give a comparison, Mozilla V IE6, try them both and you be the judge. Without these people beavering away just as other young developers have done in the past we will miss out on important inovation, no matter wh ends up with it. It also encourages competition, which in turn forces all produces of software to stay on their toes, so generally as I said, open source or not , all are contributors are an important part of development, growth and inovation in this industry. I say good on all contributors, and have no problems with paying for qualit software, and if this is done by donation on a voluntary basis, when I feel the project deserves it, or for a license fee, it dosen't matter as long as I get good software, that works and does what I want, I really don't understand why people are so down on open source,, maybe it is a bit like being scared of Muslims, lack of understanding.......

Yes, I know about the history of the computer industry, and I know that the whole GNU generation hasn't played a part on it, unless one counts copying others to be playing a part in the industry.

Messy,

"I guess saying that it allows you to do anything you want isn't implying that it gives the user the freedom to do anything he wants with the software, but I'll ignore that."

You ignore way too many things, which is part of the problem. The rest is your ability to not only make up stuff as you go along but to apparently honestly believe that your opinions constitute fact. The GPL does offer the same freedoms as the BSD licence and if you read both licences you will be able to see that. And while we are at it, Microsoft provide no "free software" at all. When you attempt to discuss anything related to the GPL or BSD licence you should at the very least learn the difference between proprietary freeware ad free software as defined by the GPL or BSD licence.

And no, Messy, it is very apparent that you do not know much about the history of the computer industry. And your belief that the GNU people have merely copied is now as wrong as it was when you were last corrected. Apparently you don't even learn; or refuse to accept facts.

Do you actually believe that anybody takes you serious?

I have seen many advocates of proprietary software in my time, but NEVER EVER was one so utterly uninformed, so completely ignorant of free software, and so convinced that his opinions were facts and his silly ideas "revelations" as you seem to be.

I'll admit that I don't know the licenses by heart, but if I remember correctly, as this one Linux zealot writes on Slashdot. the BSD license allows developers to incorporate BSD code into their products without anymore than an acknowledgement of who created that code, while the GPL forbids developers to incorporate GPL code into their products unless their products are under the GPL as well. Now, maybe it's only my opinion (as well as everybody else's), but those two licenses are very different, and one can see that a developer has more freedom to do what they will with code under the BSDL than they do with the GPL'd code. Surely you knew that.

(I'm also using the actual definition of the word "freedom" and not RMS' doublespeak version (another trait of communism!), so I'm not going to listen to any arguments that the definition of a word from a forty-year-old virgin is correct while the definition used by the rest of the world isn't.)

It is true that the GPL demands that derivative works must also fall under the GPL, but that is no restriction on what you may do with the software. It is a restriction on what you may demand from other people. Your freedoms as a user of the software are not affected by it. It merely concerns your freedoms of taking away these freedoms from others. I don't think this is really an issue for software users. I mean how often do you decline to use software because you couldn't rerelease it under different terms? But I have seen people decline to use software because of restrictions on how they can _use_ the software. Even developers have the same freedoms with both licences, the GPL's demand merely concerns those who want to add restrictions, not those who use or develop software per se.

And you can stop your little "me and the world" game because nobody is believing it anyway. RMS does not use a different definition of freedom than anybody else. I believe you have just decided that this is your last line of defence, the last quasi-argument you could bring up to defend your ignorant position.

I think your real problem with the GPL is that it effectively forbids other people to do what you have claimed the GNU people did: profit from others' work without paying them anything. You can't even imagine how often the points of advocates of capitalism (of your type, not the general such) come all down to "How can lazy people profit from this for free?". If there is any freedom the GPL restricts it is the freedom to make a profit by selling other people's work. If that is a problem for you, you will probably fail in a capitalist society and would actually need a communist society to keep you on top of things.

Even developers have the same freedoms with both licences, the GPL's demand merely concerns those who want to add restrictions, not those who use or develop software per se.

Nope. The developer cannot choose the license of the software that includes GPL'd code while the developer can with BSD code. Playing semantics won't work either.

Messy,

Choosing a licence for software you distribute has nothing to do with _using_ the software. Get that in your head. Think about that when you are talking "playing semantics". The plain fact is that the GPL does not stop you from doing anything you like with the software, it merely stops you from now allowing other people the same freedom. The GPL is thus a problem only for those who want to distribute other people's works under more restrictive licences in order to make some money. Well, you know what, tough luck. These people can write their own software if they want.

Andrew - thank you for educating us. Copyright is, well.. subtle, and sometimes confusing what with the 'granting of rights' and all. But - it makes sense your last post. Duh - free software / open source is selfless - it's... free.

I kinda equate it to plagiarizing (sp?). You can quote me on that, but don't go around saying you thought it up.

One must wonder if he knew what he was getting into, stirring up a viper pen of geeks. I'm a computer guy and I know what I'm talking about. My operating system of choice is WinXP Pro. Why? Not because it has the best tools (although its tools are a lot more sophisticated than that of linux, albeit more bloated- and if you don't believe me, you've only to look at the programming languages involved- that's an irrelevant fact for most users) but because I like software.

That doesn't even need further explanation. Nobody is selfless. And that's about all I have to say about that.

~Dan