Watch out for That Meteor, Stallman

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nik Coughlin, Sep 24, 2009.

  1. Nik Coughlin

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Richard M. Stallman (RMS) the founder of the Free Software Foundation, has
    labeled prominent Open Source software developer Miguel De Icaza a "Traitor"
    for his creation of the Microsoft .NET-compatible Mono software development
    framework. While RMS's hatred of all things proprietary has fueled the FSF's
    and GNU's mission to create Free software alternatives for what seems like
    eons, the overwhelming desire for interoperability between open and
    proprietary systems makes his narrow-minded Cretaceous world view ripe for
    extinction."

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=11167
     
    Nik Coughlin, Sep 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nik Coughlin

    Carnations Guest

    On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:58:49 +1200, Nik Coughlin wrote:

    > "Richard M. Stallman (RMS) the founder of the Free Software Foundation,
    > has labeled prominent Open Source software developer Miguel De Icaza a
    > "Traitor" for his creation of the Microsoft .NET-compatible Mono
    > software development framework. While RMS's hatred of all things
    > proprietary has fueled the FSF's and GNU's mission to create Free
    > software alternatives for what seems like eons, the overwhelming desire
    > for interoperability between open and proprietary systems makes his
    > narrow-minded Cretaceous world view ripe for extinction."


    The way you interoperate between open and proprietary systems is to use open *protocols*.

    There is no point in creating an "open" application if it uses proprietary protocols.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Sep 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nik Coughlin

    impossible Guest

    "Carnations" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:58:49 +1200, Nik Coughlin wrote:
    >
    >> "Richard M. Stallman (RMS) the founder of the Free Software Foundation,
    >> has labeled prominent Open Source software developer Miguel De Icaza a
    >> "Traitor" for his creation of the Microsoft .NET-compatible Mono
    >> software development framework. While RMS's hatred of all things
    >> proprietary has fueled the FSF's and GNU's mission to create Free
    >> software alternatives for what seems like eons, the overwhelming desire
    >> for interoperability between open and proprietary systems makes his
    >> narrow-minded Cretaceous world view ripe for extinction."

    >
    > The way you interoperate between open and proprietary systems is to use
    > open *protocols*.
    >
    > There is no point in creating an "open" application if it uses proprietary
    > protocols.
    >
    >


    If you want your customers to interoperate with existing proprietary
    software, that's exactly what you do.
     
    impossible, Sep 25, 2009
    #3
  4. In message <>, Carnations wrote:

    > There is no point in creating an "open" application if it uses proprietary
    > protocols.


    But then again, once a protocol is implemented in a piece of Free Software,
    which is freely usable, copyable, modifiable and distributable, can you
    still accuse that protocol of being "proprietary"?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 25, 2009
    #4
  5. In message <4abc5754$>, vitw wrote:

    > If you take F/OSS fundamentalism to the extreme, you would even be
    > opposed to using proprietary BIOS, proprietary motherboards, even Intel
    > and AMD CPUs.


    Funny you should mention that...

    <http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot>
    <http://www.opensparc.net/>
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 25, 2009
    #5
  6. Nik Coughlin

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:26:09 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > But then again, once a protocol is implemented in a piece of Free
    > Software, which is freely usable, copyable, modifiable and
    > distributable, can you still accuse that protocol of being
    > "proprietary"?


    Yes, if you have to license the use of it!!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Sep 25, 2009
    #6
  7. In message <>, Carnations wrote:

    > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:26:09 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> But then again, once a protocol is implemented in a piece of Free
    >> Software, which is freely usable, copyable, modifiable and
    >> distributable, can you still accuse that protocol of being
    >> "proprietary"?

    >
    > Yes, if you have to license the use of it!!


    Which part of "freely usable, copyable, modifiable and distributable" did
    you miss?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 25, 2009
    #7
  8. Nik Coughlin

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:15:36 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >>> But then again, once a protocol is implemented in a piece of Free
    >>> Software, which is freely usable, copyable, modifiable and
    >>> distributable, can you still accuse that protocol of being
    >>> "proprietary"?

    >>
    >> Yes, if you have to license the use of it!!

    >
    > Which part of "freely usable, copyable, modifiable and distributable"
    > did you miss?


    What part of "proprietary" did you mess?


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Sep 25, 2009
    #8
  9. Nik Coughlin

    victor Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <>, Carnations wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:26:09 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> But then again, once a protocol is implemented in a piece of Free
    >>> Software, which is freely usable, copyable, modifiable and
    >>> distributable, can you still accuse that protocol of being
    >>> "proprietary"?

    >> Yes, if you have to license the use of it!!

    >
    > Which part of "freely usable, copyable, modifiable and distributable" did
    > you miss?


    Patented by Microsoft ?
     
    victor, Sep 25, 2009
    #9
  10. In message <>, Carnations wrote:

    > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:15:36 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >>>> But then again, once a protocol is implemented in a piece of Free
    >>>> Software, which is freely usable, copyable, modifiable and
    >>>> distributable, can you still accuse that protocol of being
    >>>> "proprietary"?
    >>>
    >>> Yes, if you have to license the use of it!!

    >>
    >> Which part of "freely usable, copyable, modifiable and distributable"
    >> did you miss?

    >
    > What part of "proprietary" did you mess?


    Where?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 25, 2009
    #10
  11. Nik Coughlin

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-09-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <>, Carnations wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:15:36 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> But then again, once a protocol is implemented in a piece of Free
    >>>>> Software, which is freely usable, copyable, modifiable and
    >>>>> distributable, can you still accuse that protocol of being
    >>>>> "proprietary"?
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, if you have to license the use of it!!
    >>>
    >>> Which part of "freely usable, copyable, modifiable and distributable"
    >>> did you miss?

    >>
    >> What part of "proprietary" did you mess?

    >
    > Where?


    Mess, is about food.
     
    Gordon, Sep 26, 2009
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mickey Mouse
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    420
    BrianM
    Sep 18, 2007
  2. Mickey Mouse

    FSF's Stallman branded a hypocritical liar

    Mickey Mouse, Dec 18, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    129
    Views:
    2,534
  3. Adam
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    460
    Jasen Betts
    Aug 9, 2008
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,014
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Stallman Crashes Patent Session

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    695
    victor
    Sep 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page