>> That's the fallacy of the GPL. It's less about privacy (YOU Vs big brother) and more about people feeling entitled to free software. All the time.
It was initially about access to the code that's running on your machine, and the ability to modify it - i.e. grant you control of what happens on your hardware. But it was always also about sharing with each other, for free. That's been part of the RMS and GNU thing since the beginning. It's not a fallacy, nor is it a deception.
>> And now it's too far - you're trying to ...
I'm not sure why you're accusing me of anything, I've never even used this product, let alone given it out to anyone.
>> ... trying to bankrupt people ...
WOW.
OK no this is just ludicrous.
The people that make this distribution had a choice - they could start a new OS from scratch, they could choose to base their product on something that would give them control over further distribution licenses (BSD), or they could choose to base it on GPL'd code. This was their choice. They chose to base their work on the incredible amount of work others have already put in to the Ubuntu (and general Linux) ecosystem, knowing the license it was under.
They have no right whatsoever, none, to now cry about this and your position there is extremely unreasonable. I don't get to take another artist's song, add an extra drumbeat and release it as my own without regard to the license of that original. This is much the same.
>> Taken further, the license that Linux falls under makes like all the more miserable for providing your own value and creativity.
It really doesn't make anyone's life miserable.
Basing your work on an immensely more massive body of work done by other people, and then getting arsey about license obligations, is not on.
And the GPL is not a minefield, it's a reciprocal agreement - you can do what you like with this, but you must preserve the freedoms you get with it and pass those on.
It was initially about access to the code that's running on your machine, and the ability to modify it - i.e. grant you control of what happens on your hardware. But it was always also about sharing with each other, for free. That's been part of the RMS and GNU thing since the beginning. It's not a fallacy, nor is it a deception.
>> And now it's too far - you're trying to ...
I'm not sure why you're accusing me of anything, I've never even used this product, let alone given it out to anyone.
>> ... trying to bankrupt people ...
WOW.
OK no this is just ludicrous.
The people that make this distribution had a choice - they could start a new OS from scratch, they could choose to base their product on something that would give them control over further distribution licenses (BSD), or they could choose to base it on GPL'd code. This was their choice. They chose to base their work on the incredible amount of work others have already put in to the Ubuntu (and general Linux) ecosystem, knowing the license it was under.
They have no right whatsoever, none, to now cry about this and your position there is extremely unreasonable. I don't get to take another artist's song, add an extra drumbeat and release it as my own without regard to the license of that original. This is much the same.
>> Taken further, the license that Linux falls under makes like all the more miserable for providing your own value and creativity.
It really doesn't make anyone's life miserable.
Basing your work on an immensely more massive body of work done by other people, and then getting arsey about license obligations, is not on.
And the GPL is not a minefield, it's a reciprocal agreement - you can do what you like with this, but you must preserve the freedoms you get with it and pass those on.
It's really very simple and fair.