Change GPL forcing Companies to put Linux on Packaging

[linuxcool]

Hello Everyone,
Like any product only through tell potential customers do you get sales. For too long Linux through its very form of being generally free has led to there being very little money to advertise it. Now with the growing number of companies taking advantage of this free technology allowing them to make large sums of money it's time for them to give something back. Additional wording to the GPL should be added that anyone can still use the code at no cost providing Packaging / Manuals contains the fact that this product uses Linux based software.
While buyer of these products will as a whole see the word "LINUX" and think nothing of it, over time as more products they buy use Linux, acceptance of the OS with grow to the point where more PC users will be willing to give a Linux based Desktop a go and not just dismiss it as a geeks toy OS.

Imagine if a customer buys a Microwave and it says "Uses Linux based Technologies" and then they buy a Android Mobile and again on the box is the words "Uses Linux based Technologies". Now 6 months pass and they need a "Satnav Navigator" for their car or a new "Digital TV" and once again the words "Uses Linux based Technologies" appears on the box. Now we've sown the seeds in their minds that sooner or later they'll ask themselves what is the Linux based Technologies I keep seeing everywhere!

So imagine all it took was the adding of a few careful words to the GPL forcing companies like Google to be required to list the fact that they use "Linux based Technologies" in their Products. It costs them no more to add a few words to their Packaging but the advertising for Linux would increase its acceptance no end.

Lets look at it this way Google takes Linux builds Android on top of it and the average User is none the wiser to the fact they are using Linux to them their using "ANDROID" Googles cool new OS. Linux gets no benefit at all. Is this right!

Spread the idea if you agree...
Think I'm wrong tell us why...

[chris200x9]

problem I write this script:

GPL it, "hey it's a linux based technology!" Being GPL doesn't make something linux based.

[linuxcool]

GPL it, "hey it's a linux based technology!" Being GPL doesn't make something linux based.

OK forgive my dumbness in forgetting that GPL covers more than just Linux.

OK your so smart LOL! What would need to be changed Legally to make Google etc put "hey it's a Linux based technology!" (your words) on their packaging.

[tgalati4]

"Linux Inside"

[jerenept]

"Linux Inside"

http://www.prlog.org/11133916-linux-inside.jpg

[chris200x9]

OK forgive my dumbness in forgetting that GPL covers more than just Linux.

OK your so smart LOL! What would need to be changed Legally to make Google etc put "hey it's a Linux based technology!" (your words) on their packaging.

I don't really know. My only thought is maybe something like changing the kernel license from GPLv2 to a "custom" license that is the exact same thing except with that clause added.

[leclerc65]

"Linux Inside"
Intel might sue.:p

[juancarlospaco]

No.
Think of Environtment, its no ecological.

[earthpigg]

-It would be darn-near impossible to change Linux (kernel) from anything besides GPLv_.

-No way in heck the next version of the GPL would include any such Linux-centric provision while RMS still lives.

-Read up on the relationship between Linux, Linus, GNU, and the FSF. There is no unified front.

-The proposed "must display this ad" clause is very similar to the early BSD licenses. They have since been abandoned for several very good reasons.

[earthpigg]

"Linux Inside"

Intel might sue.:p

The Linux Trademark Institute (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark) might sue, too, if this isn't done with their permission.

[linuxcool]

OK, so forcing companies using Linux to acknowledge the fact they do is kind off going again what Linux stands for.

Even worse when I read out loud "forcing companies" I can see how anti-Linux it sounds... more like what Microsoft and Apple would do... Time to wash my mouth out with soap... LOL!

What about this: (An open invitation) This is a friendly request from the Linux Community to all company's benefiting through the use of Linux technologies in their products to acknowledge its use on Packaging and/or in the User's Manual.

Do you have any ideas to spread the word of Linux without spending large sums of $$$$$$

[earthpigg]

What about this: (An open invitation) This is a friendly request from the Linux Community to all company's benefiting through the use of Linux technologies in their products to acknowledge its use on Packaging and/or in the User's Manual.

Do you have a proposed way to convince companies that it is in their own best interest?

[zekopeko]

OK, so forcing companies using Linux to acknowledge the fact they do is kind off going again what Linux stands for.

Even worse when I read out loud "forcing companies" I can see how anti-Linux it sounds... more like what Microsoft and Apple would do... Time to wash my mouth out with soap... LOL!

What about this: (An open invitation) This is a friendly request from the Linux Community to all company's benefiting through the use of Linux technologies in their products to acknowledge its use on Packaging and/or in the User's Manual.

Do you have any ideas to spread the word of Linux without spending large sums of $$$$$$

It's really anti-productive to try and force this on companies. Companies that want to mark their product as working on Linux have been using the little penguin Tux icon for a while.

It's not really important to spread the word that something has been built using the Linux kernel/ecosystem. Even Ubuntu is slowly moving from being "Linux for human beings" to being Ubuntu, the free and open-source operating system.

[linuxcool]

It's not really important to spread the word that something has been built using the Linux kernel/ecosystem. Even Ubuntu is slowly moving from being "Linux for human beings" to being Ubuntu, the free and open-source operating system.

To some "Linux" is a dirty word and to others a hard to use OS. Maybe Ubuntu feels the name "Linux" is holding it back because of past experiences.

If you could use a crystal ball and see the difference in sales of mobile phones if Google had call Android "Android Linux" instead of just Android, there could be a 10% difference just because some PC Users still see Linux as a geek hard to use OS.

Seeing Linux really only refers to the kernel maybe other Distro's should follow suit and call themselves for example "Debian an open-source operating system".

To me the name "Linux" doesn't sound very exciting a want to buy product.
So if Steve jobs took over Linux maybe we'd see "iLinux" instead. Still not a very sexy sounding product is it.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

To some "Linux" is a dirty word and to others a hard to use OS. Maybe Ubuntu feels the name "Linux" is holding it back because of past experiences.

I think it's more that Linux is a small part of the platform we're trying to build here. As you say, Android uses Linux. WebOS uses Linux. A lot of routers use Linux.

Saying "this is Linux" is like saying "this printer is Windows." It isn't right (the printer may have _drivers_ for Windows), and it doesn't actually say what the printer is.

We all love Linux to bits, but calling something a "Linux distro" (with all the associated baggage) is a pointless way to limit the range of an operating system. It says we're just another of the thousand or so generic combobulations of software with an installer CD. That isn't an easy thing for a third party developer to seriously target :)

[murderslastcrow]

I think it would be more logical to promote open standards, then open source software, then Linux. A gradual approach to make people comfortable with open technology.

Of course, a far more effective approach than stamping LINUX on devices that use it would be to mention it to people when they ask, "oh, what's that nifty interface," or, "what's on that phone anyway?" It's best not to go out of your way, but to pique their interest so they desire Linux discovery.

Aside from gradually giving Linux a good name, the best thing we can do is focus on improving our software/community and not being so bent out of shape that not everyone's using Linux. Especially when there's no way of knowing for sure how many people use Linux, there's little point in letting it bother you. But, from confirmed numbers around the world, it's fairly obvious that people from all walks of life use Linux for various tasks, and that we have many millions of users.

So really, we're getting there- just enjoy the software. Just like you wouldn't be apprehensive if not everyone you knew used the same media player you do, you shouldn't be all that disturbed by someone using a different OS. For all you know, you could be using the same software for the most part.

[aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==]

"Linux" isn't so much of an issue, and Linus is an egotistical jerk that refuses to upgrade Linux to the new GPLv3 anyway, so it's doubtful whether he would upgrade to this new licence. The issue is making GNU/Linux distributions use the term "GNU/Linux". Ever notice how GNU/Linux is the only OS commonly referred to as its kernel alone? It should be made clearer that eg. Ubuntu, Fedora, etc are not "operating systems", but software distributions of the GNU/Linux operating system.

[cascade9]

What would need to be changed Legally to make Google etc put "hey it's a Linux based technology!" (your words) on their packaging.

Do you really want a closed source (well, the google bits anyway) project, thats designed to have all programs and data under googles control advertised in any way as 'linux'? It would just make things harder, you'll get people trying chromeOS and when they find they cant install even a printer driver, let alone any software, what do you think they'll say?

http://www.google.com/support/chromeos/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=180910

Linux sucks, thats what.

[linuxcool]

Hello cascade9,
I don't want closed source software that's why I'm here and not in front of a Windows PC.

I just thought it would be nice to see companies using Linux show their support by advertising on the box that they use Linux.

I know a number of narrow minded people who say that Linux is a second rate system without even trying it. I would love to see their faces when they brought a product and discovered it used "Linux that second rate system" they dismiss with out even trying it.

Now as it stands this won't happen because Linux is hidden inside and they'll never know and their misguided fantasy will continue.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Labeling a product as using Linux may mislead people into thinking the device is compatible with a Linux OS. I have a TomTom GPS navigation device that uses Linux; however, I still have to connect it to a Windows OS computer to update the maps, etc.

[aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==]

Labeling a product as using Linux may mislead people into thinking the device is compatible with a Linux OS. I have a TomTom GPS navigation device that uses Linux; however, I still have to connect it to a Windows OS computer to update the maps, etc.

If that's what it takes to break the kernel==OS misconception, I'm fine with it. "Linux" doesn't imply "GNU/Linux", and just using the Linux kernel alone doesn't say anything about the OS itself, because the kernel isn't the entire OS.

[jerenept]

"Linux" isn't so much of an issue, and Linus is an egotistical jerk that refuses to upgrade Linux to the new GPLv3 anyway, so it's doubtful whether he would upgrade to this new licence.


You're calling Linus an egotistical jerk because he doesn't use the GPLv3? What exactly is wrong with the GPLv2? RMS is way worse, IMHO.
The issue is making GNU/Linux distributions use the term "GNU/Linux". Ever notice how GNU/Linux is the only OS commonly referred to as its kernel alone? It should be made clearer that eg. Ubuntu, Fedora, etc are not "operating systems", but software distributions of the GNU/Linux operating system.

Why is this even necessary? Does it write drivers? Does it increase adoption? Does calling it GNU/Linux in any way help out the cause of Linux, embedded, desktop, server, high-performance computing, anywhere? NO. All it does is inflate the ego of RMS and his band of followers over at the FSF, as they are becoming increasingly marginalised by LLVM/Clang, and other superior replacements to GNU software.

Oh, and, if you want to give "everybody's credit where it's due", you might want to try running
dpkg -l > ~/packages.txt

[zekopeko]

If that's what it takes to break the kernel==OS misconception, I'm fine with it. "Linux" doesn't imply "GNU/Linux", and just using the Linux kernel alone doesn't say anything about the OS itself, because the kernel isn't the entire OS.

You mean GNU/X/OO.org/Firefox/insert-name-of-every-project-that-makes-a-modern-Linux-based-distro-but-isn't-part-of-GNU, right?

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Old_Gray_Wolf View Post
Labeling a product as using Linux may mislead people into thinking the device is compatible with a Linux OS. I have a TomTom GPS navigation device that uses Linux; however, I still have to connect it to a Windows OS computer to update the maps, etc.


If that's what it takes to break the kernel==OS misconception, I'm fine with it.

Even if labeling a product with the Linux name leads people to the misconception that the device is compatible with their Linux OS?


"Linux" doesn't imply "GNU/Linux", and just using the Linux kernel alone doesn't say anything about the OS itself, because the kernel isn't the entire OS.

What does that have to do with my post? Those of us that have used Linux, GNU/Linux, etc. for years already know that. Obviously you are trying to make a point and used my post to express your opinion without considering if your reply/opinion was relevant to what I posted.

It really doesn't matter how you reply. This thread is already starting to get off topic. I will not get sucked into a flame war.

[saulgoode]

Why is this even necessary? Does it write drivers? Does it increase adoption? Does calling it GNU/Linux in any way help out the cause of Linux, embedded, desktop, server, high-performance computing, anywhere? NO.

Your emphatic "NO" is hardly absolute. Calling it GNU/Linux may indeed "help out the cause" if "the cause" happens to be something other than a popularity contest.



Oh, and, if you want to give "everybody's credit where it's due", you might want to try running
dpkg -l > ~/packages.txt
You are responding to an argument that wasn't presented. Nobody (but you) mentioned "giving credit where it's due"; aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw== stated that GNU/Linux provided a clearer description of the operating system.

[murderslastcrow]

I think we have a good thing going the way we're going. You don't see people calling OS X GNU/Darwin/Aqua, or Windows DOS/NT/Minwin/Aero. It would be unweildy and downright stupid. I think there's a big difference with crediting the right people for the job and having the name of your product be unadvertisable. Every Linux distro I know of makes it explicit in its acknowledgements and statements that it's based on GNU/Linux. I don't see any reason why we need to make it any more obvious.

Again, it suggests a deficient amount of self-confidence in your decision to use Linux to have this feverish need to make everyone know that's what it is. It would be nice if everyone who used open source knew just what they're getting out of it, but not every Firefox user reads "Know Your Rights." It's better that people get open source software in the first place and understand the basic tenents- they don't need to know exactly what is composing their OS.

And, to be frank, although Linux can't do anything without GNU utilities, it would still RUN by itself. As it's the core of the OS, and it's a unique product in its modularity, it makes sense that the OS would be referred to under the umbrella term of 'Linux'.

Not saying it's right, but it's what happened, and it's what we're stuck with. If we're so upset with new users not knowing, we should talk to new users about it once they're comfortable with their OS. Forcing people to know about it will only make them distrustful.

[K.Mandla]

I'm not sure if I'm on board with your plan. The GPL and Linux awareness sound like two different things, and adjusting the license terms to promote free software is mixing two concepts that are only tangentially related.

[handy]

For one, the BSD license comes to mind...

Who dares define my freedom?

[aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==]

Who dares define my freedom?

The FSF.


Oh, and, if you want to give "everybody's credit where it's due", you might want to try running

GNU/Linux naming convention isn't just about giving credit where it's due, it's simply naming the OS after its components. Linux is a vital part of an operating system as defined by POSIX, as are some of the GNU tools. X, OOo, GIMP etc are not.

If "GNU/Linux" is too unpronounceable for Linus, he should have thought of an alternative name instead of erroneously naming the entire OS after his kernel alone.

[jerenept]

Who dares define my freedom?


The FSF.

Who gave them the right to define my freedom? I reserve the right to define my freedom, thank you very much.



GNU/Linux naming convention isn't just about giving credit where it's due, it's simply naming the OS after its components. Linux is a vital part of an operating system as defined by POSIX, as are some of the GNU tools. X, OOo, GIMP etc are not.

If "GNU/Linux" is too unpronounceable for Linus, he should have thought of an alternative name instead of erroneously naming the entire OS after his kernel alone.

GNU/Linux is unpronounceable to pretty much anyone.

Maybe you don't understand what POSIX is, so I'll quote :
POSIX (pronounced /ˈpɒzɪks/ POZ-iks) or "Portable Operating System Interface [for Unix]"[1] is the name of a family of related standards specified by the IEEE to define the application programming interface (API), along with shell and utilities interfaces for software compatible with variants of the Unix operating system, although the standard can apply to any operating system.

And you might be interested to know that Linux is not fully POSIX-Compliant.

Naming the OS after its components: Well, then, I am using GNU/Linux/Unity, to name a few, dual-booted with DOS/Windows 3.11/95/NT/XP/Vista/7/Aero. And, on the iMac, I have MacOS 10.4.11/Darwin/Aqua/Mach.

[Spice Weasel]

This is a terrible idea.

Also, can the GNU/Linux zealots and the Linux zealots just use whatever name they feel like and leave each other alone?

[aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==]

Naming the OS after its components: Well, then, I am using GNU/Linux/Unity, to name a few, dual-booted with DOS/Windows 3.11/95/NT/XP/Vista/7/Aero. And, on the iMac, I have MacOS 10.4.11/Darwin/Aqua/Mach.

GNU/Linux may not be fully POSIX compliant, but it adheres to the definition pretty closely. And the GUI isn't part of the definition, therefore, listing GUI components of your system in the OS name doesn't make sense, so stop using this excuse.

[jerenept]

How about this; we'll agree to disagree, because I'm getting tired and I want to sleep. you can use GNewSense ('http://gnewsense.org/'), a Ubuntu remix that emphasises upon your Freedom, and I will continue to use Ubuntu 11.04, with the Proprietary NVIDIA drivers, Fluendo codecs, and who knows what else, ok?

If you ask me, this thread has run its course.

[aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==]

How about this; we'll agree to disagree

That's not how rational discourse works. It's the ultimate getaway once you're out of arguments, since it's cheap and somehow leaves the impression that both sides have equal arguments once they tautologically agree that they do, in fact disagree. It's stating the obvious as a last resort of the person who has nothing else to add to the debate. It was also unneeded and uncalled for, since there are obviously other people who very much do want to continue this debate, and assuming they all share your lack of argumentation is arrogant to say the least.

[earthpigg]

If "GNU/Linux" is too unpronounceable for Linus, he should have thought of an alternative name instead of erroneously naming the entire OS after his kernel alone.

Could you please list all of the GNU/X/FreeCiv/Linux complete operating system distributions that Linus himself picked the name for?

Linus created a kernel, and that is all he named. (Actually, his buddy named it and he merely consented.)

Early Linux was developed on minix, intended for Intel 80386 hardware, compiled on gcc, and he ported bash to it.

The essential tools used in those early days came from the minix project, intel, and the gnu project. gcc and bash weren't the only compiler and shell around any more than minix was the only unix-like environment around.

he didn't "need" anything from gnu any more than he "needed" minux -- they both happened to be merely the most convenient for him. if i built something out of wood, i would probably use 2x4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_lumber#Dimensional_lumber)s. Not because there is anything magical or special about a 2 inch by 4 inch peace of wood, but because i coincidentally live in a country that uses inches, and it would be the most convenient to simply use the supply chain that is already in place to get some 2x4 pieces of wood. Importing or having specially cut 5cm by 10cm wood would be silly, especially since the differences would almost always be trivial and completely inconsequential (unless i mixed and matched). Guess what building materials Linus was using as a student at University of Helsinki?

If you think he should have called it GNU/Linux because of the gnu compiler and shell, then by that same logic you ought also feel he should have named it Minix/Intel/GNU/UniversityOfHelsinki/Linux. Actually, I would argue that the Finnish form of government was far more crucial to early Linux development than anything out of the GNU project. If Linus needed to work 40 hours a week in addition to being a student... hrm.

Oh, and I think the NT kernel contains bits of BSD code for networking stuff. I suppose we need to call it Microsoft Windows 7/BSD. OS X would also certainly need to be called BSD/GNU/OSX.


I'm not taking a stand on the GNU/Linux naming controversy, just pointing out that it's silly to blame Linus for choices made by others.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I'm not taking a stand on the GNU/Linux naming controversy, just pointing out that it's silly to blame Linus for choices made by others.

In addition, you (numbers and letters guy) actually have the GNU/Linux naming controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy) backwards. Nobody has anything against Linux being called Linux. RMS is concerned that the name “Linux” has become an umbrella term for the standard free operating system with a Linux kernel. Technically, we probably should be calling these things just GNU systems, but Linux is such a nice name.

The argument made a lot more sense when it was fresh. At this point, there are many components with nothing to do with GNU so we can go on forever. Personally, I switch between “GNU/Linux,” “Linux” and “Ubuntu” depending on context. If I am talking about a component, I say “XOrg” or “DBus” or “gedit.” It isn't hard, and I have yet to find a context where I would be offending somebody ;)

Sometimes we just have to work with what we have. I think RMS has trouble with compromise. He aims high, and if something isn't right he will wait for it to change. (He's amazingly unwavering, which is probably how GNU has come so far). Hence the energy wasted trying to convince the universe to stop using the name “Linux” in a way he doesn't like.
Someone more open to compromise would have seen a golden opportunity here: this free software project has an awesome name that normal people recognise. That is something to work with. It doesn't matter what the name is. It is good enough to win some hearts and raise awareness.


"Linux" isn't so much of an issue, and Linus is an egotistical jerk that refuses to upgrade Linux to the new GPLv3 anyway, so it's doubtful whether he would upgrade to this new licence. The issue is making GNU/Linux distributions use the term "GNU/Linux". Ever notice how GNU/Linux is the only OS commonly referred to as its kernel alone? It should be made clearer that eg. Ubuntu, Fedora, etc are not "operating systems", but software distributions of the GNU/Linux operating system.

You also have this wrong. Yes, if I recall correctly, Linus is opposed to GPL3 (among other things, he isn't a fan of the anti-tivoization stuff). However, more importantly, it would be impossible to re-license Linux to anything anyway.
Its license is GPL2 and above, and it is going to stay that way for eternity.
That is because every contributor owns the copyright for his own code. So, if Linux was to be relicensed, every single person with code in the kernel would need to be contacted and every single person would need to consent. And there are bound to be a good number of people in there who share Linus's point of view, because it's actually a pretty good one.

So, the most practical way to legally change Linux's license is to write a new kernel. In short, that matter is way out of anyone's hands and that is how free software works.

[linuxcool]

I started this thread wanting wording on the box that Linux was used in this product. I've come to realize the wording should read "Open Source Software is used in this Product" not Linux at all.

I can also see why if true Ubuntu is moving its description to an "Open Source OS" and not a "Linux OS".

In the long run I feel Ubuntu will get more Users if it does.

Also as pointed out putting Linux on the box would give the impression that this product works with every version of Linux out there which as everyone whose been a Linux user for a long time knows isn't true.

I'm glad I posted it and I thank everyone who commented. I got far more out of it then I expected.

[handy]

I understand why the FSF exists, it is an extremist group that's level of extremity is dictated to it by the extreme opposite paradigms that it is trying to counter.

The FSF has done a lot of good, there is no denying that. It has also limited the uptake of Linux in particular, by corporations & has scared off a lot of contributors due to the GPL.

Which is why I like the BSD license better.

[zekopeko]

Technically, we probably should be calling these things just GNU systems, but Linux is such a nice name.

Actually we shouldn't be calling them GNU systems either way. If RMS wants people to call something a GNU system then he should release a distro that is called GNU. Historically those that actually create an OS/distro decide how to call it.

The only technically correct term one could use today is "Linux-based system". The Linux kernel is the only truly irreplaceable piece of software at this point. The userland can be replaced rather easily as Android proved IIRC.

Saying that something is Linux or based on Linux is perfectly acceptable since there is always a context behind it. "My server runs Linux" or "My laptop runs Linux and Gnome" or "My GPS run on Linux" etc.

[murderslastcrow]

You can't do anything without a kernel. With a kernel, you can do almost nothing but run it. But you can still run it. It is the most essential piece, so I think it makes perfect sense to generalize on it. However, we all know that people have their reasons for calling it GNU/Linux, and calling it GNU/Linux is no less accurate than just calling it Linux (with a bunch of other crap on top, just like NT with a bunch of crap on top or Darwin with a bunch of crap on top).

So I think if someone wants to call it GNU/Linux, fine. Just don't rail on someone else for shortening it a bit, when they obviously don't mean to ignore the FSF or free software values. It's childish to argue semantics with people who are doing all they can to talk about the issues of software freedom already.

No matter the label you give freedom, it's still freedom.

In other words, THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS! D:

[jerenept]

That's not how rational discourse works. It's the ultimate getaway once you're out of arguments, since it's cheap and somehow leaves the impression that both sides have equal arguments once they tautologically agree that they do, in fact disagree. It's stating the obvious as a last resort of the person who has nothing else to add to the debate.

The fact remains, that I am not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change mine. Any further debate would simply be wasting both my time and yours. I use Linux, and can see the benefits that RMS and the FSF have accomplished, but I do not agree with their extremist views. as well, I do not believe that using the name GNU/Linux is necessary, or helpful.

It was also unneeded and uncalled for, since there are obviously other people who very much do want to continue this debate, and assuming they all share your lack of argumentation is arrogant to say the least.
They have the right to free speech, they can voice their opinions themselves; and they already have ;)

and, besides, this pretty much sums up my argument:
I understand why the FSF exists, it is an extremist group that's level of extremity is dictated to it by the extreme opposite paradigms that it is trying to counter.

The FSF has done a lot of good, there is no denying that. It has also limited the uptake of Linux in particular, by corporations & has scared off a lot of contributors due to the GPL.

Which is why I like the BSD license better.

[handy]

In a perfect world there wouldn't be corporations & other greed based entities.

Unfortunately for all of us the world & obviously us, aren't perfect.

So we have to be pragmatic about the situation. Which means fitting in with reality for starters.

For some of us that also means doing what we can to redefine reality; attempting to control & change it in an effort to create a more hospitable future for humanity. Some even include the biosphere as a whole in their efforts.

All of this is about countering the imperfections inherent in the collective.
The FSF is based on an attempt at doing just that, with regard to the problem that it focuses on. Unfortunately due to its inherent inflexibility (imperfection) it has created some problems as side effects of its noble efforts.

This is a common problem of fundamentalist type practises.

So how do we make the GPL more flexible to alleviate these problems?

Good question I reckon.

[dmizer]

Sorry folks.

This thread has descended well off topic and has also become mostly recurring discussion. Since there is never likely to be any kind of agreement here, I am closing the thread.

Thank you all for participating.