ie8 fix
Click Here

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney
Home / News & Blogs / Linux and Open Source

Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF

By | May 28, 2010, 6:16am PDT

Summary: Killing an app because it has a GPL license and your store policies conflict with the GPL is a base strategy. The Free Software Foundation made a political complaint. Apple acted in the way of a base politician — if the other side hates it then it must be good.

Politicians usually have a choice between employing a centrist or a base strategy. (Illustration from ZDNet Australia.)

A centrist politician will reach out to the other side. They may hold dear the principles of their party, but they accept the need for compromise and make an effort to reach out.

Microsoft these days has a centrist strategy, reaching out to open source while holding fast to its proprietary principles.

A base politician plays only to one side, their own. They reject compromise, hold their own positions as absolutes, treat the other side as an enemy that must be crushed for good to have a chance in the world.

Apple these days has a base strategy.

Killing an app because it has a GPL license and your store policies conflict with the GPL is a base strategy.  The Free Software Foundation made a political complaint. Apple acted in the way of a base politician — if the other side hates it then it must be good.

Here is the thing, though. A politician can, if they choose, alternately play to their base and act as a centrist. FDR may have welcomed their hate in the 1936 campaign, but he also put bankers like Jesse Jones in his Administration, and welcomed Republicans into the fight against Hitler.

Smart businesses can do the same thing. It’s a choice they can make, recognizing that the mass market always has an element of politics in it and you want the broadest possible acceptance.

Unfortunately that’s not how Steve Jobs rolls. It never has been. Probably because he has always been able to monetize the intense loyalty of his niche, he plays every controversy as a manichean “us vs. them” war to the death.

Speaking as a fan of open source, I think that’s a shame. Not for open source, but for Jobs, for Apple, and for the market.

Open source is not a collection of evil-doers. We’re not socialists, we’re not terrorists. We are part of the market. We cooperate on base technology but may compete fiercely for customers. We do this because software is complex, and because we can hang together better than separately.

Sorry you still don’t get that. But history shows you don’t keep big majorities, in markets or in politics, by being an absolutist.

One word, Steve. Android.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Linux and Open Source”

Topics

Politician, Apple Inc., Strategy, Management, Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

53
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
gorians Updated - 2nd Sep
They want to own Open Source the about it is bank that website attacked from the site support from any soldier site to the light homepage is great way.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
So let me get this straight.
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 28th May 2010
Someone re-wrote a port for a game, that was licensed under the GPLv2, and they then put into the iTunes store, and the FSF compained about Apples terms not being compatible because of the 5 device restriction. Grant it I am no fan of DRM and the limitation to the # of devices I can have my stuff on, but this isn't anything new, and Apple is not the only one guilty of such, however, to expect that a for profit company is going to rewrite their business model for the sake of the FSF is laughable.
0 Votes
+ -
Glad you admit Apple is guilty, guilty, guilty
NonZealot 28th May 2010
@JM1981
Apple is not the only one guilty of such

Then let's punish these companies one at a time. I see no better place to start than the company with the largest market cap in the industry: Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
Can't prosecute as DRM is protected by DMCA & EUCD
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 28th May 2010
@NonZealot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

What are you, like 13, did you just hit puberty?

Dude go back to school.
0 Votes
+ -
Typical double standard
NonZealot 28th May 2010
Can't prosecute as DRM is protected by DMCA & EUCD

Breaking DRM on a product where the owner is requesting the DRM is one thing. That isn't what is happening here. Apple is adding DRM to a product where the owner has specifically prohibited it. Again, Apple expects others like Psystar to live up to Apple's licenses but Apple simply has no respect for anyone else's intellectual property. They started by stealing the GUI from Xerox and have continued ever since.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
vulpine@... 29th May 2010
@NonZealot Why only Apple, when there are so many others who are even more guilty? Hmmm?

No, Apple isn't guilty at all. The developer who submitted it to Apple is guilty. Apple pulled it as soon as they found out.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
vulpine@... 29th May 2010
@NonZealot Oh, and let me know when you finally wrap your mind around the fact that Apple did not steal Xerox's GUI, they paid for it.
0 Votes
+ -
Paid for Xerox's GUI? lol
i2fun@... Updated - 29th May 2010
@vulpine What.......? by paying their Defense Attorneys in the court case when Xerox sued them? haha.... Right!

BTW... Xerox was never reimbursed ever!

And if your counting the fact that Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple in exchange for engineering visits as payments, your wrong. First of all the agreement wasn't made so Apple could steal their ideas out right. Plus they had to pay for their stock the same as anyone else. So how in the World does that constitute any payment or reimbursement?

The Uncommon nonsensical mind of Apple and it's fanboiis!

Anything's right as long as Apple's the one doing it!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
vulpine@... 30th May 2010
@NonZealot @i2fun: Try again. Apple paid $1million for the GUI at the first viewing. Do a little research. They paid that money long before the first Mac was released to the public.
0 Votes
+ -
Learn to Read for Better Understanding!
i2fun@... 30th May 2010
@vulpine WRONG! .....do I have to spell this out for you?
Quote:
"The compensation for the Xerox PARC technology sharing deal with Apple was in form of $1 million dollars pre-IPO Apple stock / investment (if Apple does well, Xerox will benefit from Apple?s success)."

That's off your own single as in one bogus link site called Obama's mama or something! shocked

Here's the reality; consider that Xerox itself was looking to invest in startups. Apple didn't have cash, therefore they needn't CASH to get them going (kinda like MS buying their stock in the late 90's when they were about to fold to keep them going). So Xerox purchased 1 Million in Pre-IPO Apple Stock options as an INVESTMENT to get the cashless startup going like MS invested in the 90's to keep them going and show Xerox's Confidence as a Backer and sell more stock!

Xerox was loaded they didn't need any cash. They were trying to get rid of it according Tax Incentives before Reagan closed down the Tax loopholes for being able to right off a higher percentage of your investment in Tech Stock TAX SHELTERS!

Most companies were looking for things to invest then under those Tax Shelter Laws. Why are you trying to twist it around when Steven Jobs has even admitted that they shameless stole those ideas?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

BTW.... I'm playing a FLASH VIDEO on my friend's iPhone! haha.... Do your research more thoroughly next time on Apple's thieving ways. Then be smart install Android 2.2 on your iPhone. You can also dual boot Android 2.2 with iPhone OS 4.0 when it comes out. The latest package is fully optimized and I doubt you'll go back once you've tried the dark side..... lol wink
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
zakkiromi Updated - 6th May 2011
Open source is not a collection of evil-doers. Were not socialists, were not terrorists. We are part of the market. We cooperate on base technology but may compete fiercely for customers. We do this because software is complex, and because we can hang together better than separately. a b c d e f g h i j k
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
edward polling Updated - 3rd Jul
GPL does not alow you to introduce any new restrictions to downstream recipients, and Apple's policy to restrict redistribution to up to 5 phones is doing just that: introducing edra action funds support cca64 nexumbogazici h4nholdings dataseek i santai new ipad bag blog sutudeg education news and pclos hwdb restriction. l
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
gaberdiye03 Updated - 21st Jun
@NonZealot Breaking DRM on a product where the owner is requesting the DRM is one thing. That isn't what is hap pembe maske energy balance oyna oyunu moliva orjin krem tutune son nanomatik complex 41 new fx15pening here. Apple is adding DRM to a product where the owner has specifically prohibited it. Again, Apple expects others like Psystar to live up to Apple's licenses but Apple simply has no respect for anyone else's intellectual property. They started by stealing the GUI from Xerox and have continued ever since.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
arabaoyunlari@... Updated - 11th Aug
@NonZealot That is really a big question. Google's servers are the heart of Google's business. And it has long been a FEATURE, a FEATURE, not a LOOPHOLE, that one could privately modify the GPL code they use to run their business. Of course web applications are obviously SaaS. But where does one draw the line between those applications and the servers that host them? For example, take an insurance company running open source on their back end servers. At some point they decide to put a customer facing front end on those servers so that customers can access their accounts over the Net. Does that suddenly make that whole kaboodle Saas? If so, I am not sure I am comfortable with AGPL. In fact, I am not sure I am comfortable with this concept anyway since it undercuts one of the few provisions that make GPL software highly attractive to businesses that are not engaged in reselling the software itself. It really compromises the spirit of the GPL in some ways. araba oyunlari araba oyunlari
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
gorians Updated - 2nd Sep
They want to own Open Source the about it is bank that website attacked from the site support from any soldier site to the light homepage is great way.
0 Votes
+ -
FSF says avoid GNU software
guihombre 28th May 2010
FSF is saying you cannot distribute GPL software with restrictions in ANY channel.

So he wants to put his software in the Apple store, and can also make it available outside the apple store FOR FREE WITH SOURCE, but the FSF does not accept that as complying with free distribution.

It says that Apple license must ALSO comply with GPL.

FSF really taints GPL software with this claim. You sell an application, it uses a DLL module, if FSF claim was true you could not sell it. Even if you make the GPL module free and open source via a website, ALL WAYS the software is distributed must be free and with source.

Really FSF are doing real harm to open source with these claims.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
Jkirk3279 28th May 2010
@guihombre

"You sell an application, it uses a DLL module, if FSF claim was true you could not sell it. Even if you make the GPL module free and open source via a website, ALL WAYS the software is distributed must be free and with source."

That's what occurred to me. But then, that's just the opinion of the guy at FSF.

As long as any changes are conserved and published as GPL'd source code, I'd be of the opinion you COULD sell a product with GPL components.

Otherwise there's no way to make money with GPL components and it will be stuck as a hobby.

Come to think of it, Apple uses GPL components in OS/X, and has no conflict there.

I begin to think this is just a power grab by FSF. They want to own Open Source the way Google owns Search. I wonder what their long-range goal is.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
gnufreex 28th May 2010
@guihombre & Jkirk3279

That is just bullocks. GPL is very clear and you should read it.

OS X has GPL components but it is not "Derived Work" of those GPL components, so it is not needed whole OS to be GPL. OS is collection of programs("aggregate work"), not one single monolithic program. Since GPL parts are not linked to the rest, they can be regarded as separate programs (which they are). Apple can put any kind of EULA on OS X, as long it does not imply that GPL parts are covered with that EULA too. And of course, they have to provide sources for GPL components, with all their changes included, and license must stay GPL. Apple is doing that. http://www.opensource.apple.com/

OS X is in the clear.

What here is the problem is that Appliction from Apple store is "Derived work" of GPL program, so it must stay under GPL. But problem is that policy of Apple store is fundamentally incompatible with GPL. GPL does not alow you to introduce any new restrictions to downstream recipients, and Apple's policy to restrict redistribution to up to 5 phones is doing just that: introducing new restriction.

GPL says: Freedom must reach all users of GPL'd software.

Apple store policy say: Only 5 users.
0 Votes
+ -
So Jobs is like GW Bush?
NonZealot 28th May 2010
Yeah, I can see the resemblance.
0 Votes
+ -
No Jobs is on the extreme like Obama, Bush was a centrist.
Johnny Vegas 28th May 2010
Dont know how you missed his very obvious point...
0 Votes
+ -
bush a centrist hahahahahahahahaha
Quebec-french 28th May 2010
@Johnny Vegas hahhahahahahahahha
well i dont wanna see what a far right is then good joke great
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
Jkirk3279 28th May 2010
@Johnny Vegas

Gosh !

I'm glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read that, it would have come squirting out my nose.

So, you're a warm-up comic in Vegas ?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
Rick_K 29th May 2010
@Johnny Vegas What ar you smoking? Steve is in no way similar to the Arab in the White house. Obummer is a Socialist, with an ?entitlement? attitude. Apple?s policies are not even close to a Socialist mentality.
0 Votes
+ -
When you play with Apple, you play by their rules
financegozu 28th May 2010
The 5-devices limit is a well-known constraint of the AppStore. You knew it before. Another case of cry-baby-journalism.

Sad.
0 Votes
+ -
When you buy Windows, you can only get it with IE
NonZealot 28th May 2010
@financegozu
And everyone knew that ahead of time.

Gee, how well did that work for Microsoft?

Just because you implement and advertise a policy does not mean that the courts can't punish you for it! And considering that the DoJ is finally looking into Apple for all their evil misdeeds, we could soon see Apple broken up into 30 little mini companies. happy
0 Votes
+ -
Oh yeah because MSFT
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 28th May 2010
@NonZealot: allows you to install Office on up to 5 computers. Oh wait, they don't.
0 Votes
+ -
For as much as I dislike M$ their decisions are defensible. Apple's aren't
OS Reload 28th May 2010
@JM1981

Office is a Microsoft product and as such it can be distributed with a Microsoft license.

The App store game we are talking about is a GPL derived product that must be distributed with a GPL license.

The App store is in violation of the GPL (not acceptable) while M$ Office is merely in violation of the rules of decency (acceptable.)
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 28th May 2010
@OS Reload: It isn't as if Apple made and packaged the product. And since the product was in violation of the GPLv2, Apple removed it from the store. The developer was the responsible to make sure that it was in compliance with the licensing terms. Apple is just a distribution channel.
0 Votes
+ -
More idiocy from JM
NonZealot 28th May 2010
It isn't as if Apple made and packaged the product

Actually, Apple made their bed this time, they have to lie in it. By having such strict controls over what is and is not allowed in their distribution channel, Apple is liable for what they distribute. If a bookstore starts stocking child pornography, they are liable even if they didn't make it themselves.

developer was the responsible to make sure that it was in compliance with the licensing terms.

So you are wrong, as usual. Apple is responsible for this.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
ssj6akshat 28th May 2010
@JM1981 Ok.Apple is a distributor,but does a distributor enforce its own license over the author's?
0 Votes
+ -
Job$ must embrace the GPL
Linux Guru Advocate 28th May 2010
or lose business and go down like their M$ buddies.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 28th May 2010
@Linux Guru Advocate: And linux has how much of the market? 1%. I see that OSS & the GPL has encouraged so much growth.

I like linux, as a hobby, and in some cases it has its place in the enterprise, but don't expect it to overtake Apple or MSFT anytime soon. Android may be the only exception to that.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
Jkirk3279 28th May 2010
@Linux Guru Advocate

GPL has a future, as long as people are free to make money with it. If not, it will never become important.

And BTW, has Microsoft dried up and blown away yet?
0 Votes
+ -
niche
banned from zdnet 28th May 2010
"Probably because he has always been able to monetize the intense loyalty of his niche"

a niche? what a load of bs. you probably mean the millions and millions of NEW customers apple gets every year? customers that never owned an apple product before. you mean the 100+ million ipod touch/iphone/ipad owners, most of them new to apple.

no sir, apple is winning the hearts, minds and wallets of new customers every day, simply because they build products that people actually want. i know, for techtards that concept is really hard to grasp.

"Some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away. It is."
0 Votes
+ -
Yes: **90%** of all Apple's customers are new: NOTHING to do with
DeRSSS Updated - 28th May 2010
Blankenhorn is stuck with ignorant media cliche.
0 Votes
+ -
How much money is Apple losing over it?
No_Ax_to_Grind 28th May 2010
Oh, none. I think I see your problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Everyone things being centrist is the superior
frgough 28th May 2010
position to take, but that assumes the other side's position is of greater validity than yours. That's right. GREATER validity. Otherwise, there would be no superiority in surrendering some of your principles to agree with theirs. This is the base assumption that liberals work from. Being centrist means agreeing with them, because their positions are morally superior. You will never find a leftist being willing to ceded ANY portion of his beliefs to meet a conservative partway, because the leftist is utterly devoted to and convinced of the moral superiority of his position.

Left and right are clashes of fundamental philosophies on human nature; there can be no meaningful compromise between them. The same is true of FSF and commercial software. I agree with Apple that the commercial model is the superior model, why should I therefore compromise in any way whatsoever with a philosophy that is diametrically opposed? The only point to compromise would be to push that competing philosophy closer to ultimate defeat.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple has already compromised their position
NonZealot Updated - 28th May 2010
@frgough
I agree with Apple that the commercial model is the superior model, why should I therefore compromise in any way whatsoever with a philosophy that is diametrically opposed?

Then ban all GPL software from Apple's application store. Apple wants it both ways. They want to profit from GPL software without following GPL licenses. How ironic that Apple just finished knocking Psystar out of business because Psystar didn't want to follow Apple's licenses but of course, we didn't see you defending Psystar for that one now, did we?

Cue the double standards...
0 Votes
+ -
Oh please. Apple profiting from GPL software?
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 28th May 2010
@NonZealot: in what way? 30% of nothing is still... uhhh... oh yeah nothing.

Better get back to math class, because obviously you are failing at that.
0 Votes
+ -
@jm
NonZealot 28th May 2010
Yes, they profit from free software by broadcasting how many apps are in their store, essentially convincing people to buy iPhones instead of other phones which brings them profit. But you are too much of an idiot to understand that.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
The FSF is the extreme expression of GPL
frgough 28th May 2010
so your comparison is meaningless. But you already knew that.
0 Votes
+ -
FSF taints GNU software
guihombre Updated - 28th May 2010
If ever you use GPL software, the FSF interpretation of 'derivative works' is ridiculously broad.
They claim that by linking to (i.e. making calls to) the software under GPL, you are creating a derivative works and thus need to release your software under a compatible license.

The FSF do this with the best intention, but they really cast a shadow over any GNU software. Effectively they taint the software and thus make it unusable.

FSF should examine the damage their claim does to GNU software and step back from that extremist position.

Calling a DLL on windows does not mean I am creating a derivative of Windows, likeswise calling a canon printer device driver DLL does not mean I am making a derivative canon printer driver.

FSF needs to get a grip and stop tainting GNU software.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
ssj6akshat 28th May 2010
@guihombre Dude there is LGPL for Libraies and it allows propriertary forks.
0 Votes
+ -
As usual...
zkiwi 28th May 2010
NonZealot is being lame/wrong.

Apple was told an App was in violation of GPL, they removed it. What were they supposed to do? Rewrite it for the app vendor so it was acceptable to the GPL. Or, remove it, as they were asked to, and let the app vendor sort it out with the FSF.
0 Votes
+ -
Nothing to do with FSF
guihombre 28th May 2010
Whoever WROTE the GPL module he used is the one granting the license. He presumably read the GPL bumf and decided it was a good license. It is!

FSF re-interpret that license and claim a term that isn't in that license. Here they're saying that making it freely available isn't enough, every manner it is available must also be GPL compliant and open source.

Not the first time FSF have FUD'd GPL software like this. It seems like whenever I want to introduce GPL software into a company, FSF pulls this cr*p and FUDs it's use and I'm barred from using GPL software.

Man I f**king hate what the FSF does. I swear they're the worst enemy of open source because they FUD it, whilst at the same time pretending to be a proponent of it.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
Rick_K 28th May 2010
@zkiwi So basically this article is nothing more than Anti-Apple FUD again? Seems to be the in thing at ZDNet lately, then again there are a lot of Microsoft ads. I wonder...
0 Votes
+ -
It's just lame, poorly thought through click bait...
zkiwi 31st May 2010
And at the moment, it's all the rage for zdnet bloggers to go anti-Apple regardless of the facts of the matter. Mind you, it doesn't "hurt" to note that they have way too many bloggers that express a public and loud dislike for Apple regardless of what they do. Apple could cure cancer or bring world peace and they'd still be against it. Sometimes I wonder if they do it to see how more pathetic NonZealot et al are than they are.

Note how quickly they drop these "sensational Apple" stories after it's proved that they were just "click baiting." Real journalists, unlike these "informed bloggers" would not give up on a real story, or at least one that wasn't par for the industry, but actually noteworthy.
0 Votes
+ -
One Word: Stupid
Jkirk3279 28th May 2010
Dana, I've tried to make allowances for your point of view.

You have a right to your opinions, after all.

But seriously !

Pitching this as political? Can you say "Click-Bait" ??

I KNEW you COULD !

Somebody took a free app, limited only by GPLv.2, and posted it on the iStore.

Then Apple finds out the title is encumbered by a previous license, and is therefore not salable under their Terms and Conditions.

Apple doesn't want to step in that hornet's nest.

So they pull the app, and you make it a big deal about big, bad Apple.

If they hadn't pulled the app, they might be liable for violating GPLv.2... according to one opinion, from one busybody at FSF.

And they certainly aren't going to waive their own Terms and Conditions just for one goofball trying to monetize Open Source !

If this gets straightened out, fine.

If not, developers are going to have to assume sole liability for what they post to the iStore.

BTW, does FSF remind anybody just a bit of SCO ?

Reaching a bit, aren't they?

Shouldn't they let the developer of the code be the one to launch a complaint?
0 Votes
+ -
You have this all wrong; this an ownership issue.
UrbanBard 28th May 2010
The person who registered GNU Go didn't own the App, because it was under a GPL license. Apple dropped the game because FSF was asking for the impossible; It was asking the Apple store to amend its business model. Apple couldn't do that because it doesn't own the applications it sells in the store and it has contractual obligations to its developers. Only a Socialist would put such a nasty spin on Apple's actions.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
rparatore 28th May 2010
As one Apple engineer of the 1xx employee badge holders era, I watched as Jobs' I know it all and do it my way or the highway policies surrendered their dominance to MS. I see the future hand writing on the wall of a surrender to Google if the do it my way policies continue.

Steve put your ego in check. You are quite the visionary but please realize that just as you gave Bill G Lisa and windows to offer a somewhat open or at least easily accessible PC that user wanted rather than a closed MAC you will give iphoneish platforms to those who will do the same. These technologies are not your IP and you either need to keep ahead of others continually or lighten up on your control mania and give people the useful device they desire. Steve, you'll never stop the jailbreak ever wonder why?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's base strategy deployed against FSF
Aussie_Troll 29th May 2010
how many different software licenses, companies, distro's and so on have been rejected by the FSF as 'not pure enough'. If they all whined and complained about the FSF rejecting them there would be oceans of tears.

But when some group rejects the FSF, oh my, it must be a conspiracy to destroy our 'freedoms'.

FSF has to get over the fact that they are not the arbitors of what is 'open source' or not, or what licenses or software is compliant.

And yes, it does pollute Free software, and makes it harder to the software to outshine the politics. And that is what it is all about for the FSF these days, is pushing political power, and using "free software" as their vehicle to do it.

So now it gotten to the point where regardless of the quality and FUNctionality of the software or appliaction if it does not meet the FSF stringent political standands, then they would prefer that software just not be used, as opposed to being licensed in a way that would allow people to use it.

After all, most people would use the software, far more than will ever take up the right to view the source code.
Thats just a fact of life, but seems to be a far secondary consideration. Behind political power.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix