Re: [Ghm-discuss] Main Topic for 2012

[Rick C. Hodgin]

To be clear about this, I have potentially unique insight here because of my 
own work on OS design in late 90s/early 2000s. I know what's possible, what I 
(by myself, in assembly, using MS-DOS, MASM 6.11d, and only a floppy drive for 
testing) was able to achieve. I know there are also people "called" to OS 
design (very few though). It takes something atypical to do it.

In any event, looking forward to hearing what the talks will be. :-)

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

-------- Original Message --------
 From: Rick C. Hodgin <address@hidden>
 Sent: Thu, Jun 7, 2012 08:30 PM
 To: address@hidden
 CC: address@hidden
 Subject: Re: [Ghm-discuss] Main Topic for 2012

>"By the way,`open source' is a different movement than free software; they 
>might share our licenses but not our goals." 
>
>That's why I used the term "open source" there. Read carefully.
>
>Such a distinction has been the entire thrust of my argument, not only the 
>differences between free software and open source,  but in the case of Linux 
>two separate points:
>
>#1 that their allowance of non-free contributions is reason enough for us to 
>not support them (despite us having libre-linux, we are continually, 
>SIGNIFICANTLY harmed, as are ALL people, because non-free software is allowed 
>in Linux--and that reality leads to THE single underlying /root reason for all 
>of the hardward battles we'll face, such as SecureBoot), and
>
>#2 that their use of the weak and vulnerable GPLv2, and the reasons they're 
>sticking with v2 and rejecting v3, is reason enough for us to not support them.
>
>We can do better. We owe it to people to do better.
>
>Best regards,
>Rick C. Hodgin
>
>-------- Original Message --------
> From: address@hidden
> Sent: Thu, Jun 7, 2012 06:49 PM
> To: Rick C. Hodgin <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Ghm-discuss] Main Topic for 2012
>
>>   Once something's in the GPL it's free software. It can't be taken back. 
>> Future releases under the same license can be halted, however. 
>>
>>I am not sure what you mean with `halted'; you can't take back a
>>license like the GPL or any other free software license.
>>
>>   And those copyright holders may not contribute new open source
>>   material to the new non-GPL version / release of Linux, but there's
>>   money to be made for them staying by with Linux even after a shift
>>   to a non-GPL form (and probably especially after a shift to non-GPL
>>   actually).
>>
>>As long as they stay with free software then that is good.  By the
>>way, `open source' is a different movement than free software; they
>>might share our licenses but not our goals.  See
>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html for
>>more information.