Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #184298

Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement.

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

> From: joel.rees@gmail.com
> To: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>> On Thu 20/Jul/2017 22:18:25 +0200 Fungi4All wrote:
>>>[...]
>>
>>> For linux we all need to agree before we decide.
>>
>> Yeah, that"s a pita. It"s hard to change anything if everyone can veto.
> That"s sure indication that everything is getting too big -- the companies,
> of course, but also the projects, the software, ...
> ... and the egos.

Under the same logic how can it all be considered one "big" thing with so
many different participants? Are companies, projects, developers, sysadmins,
and users all equal parties? Do companies have egos? No, they have one
motive to make money and become the only player and decision maker.
What all these different entities need is organization, each with distinct goals
and principles of organization. Then each community will have its own
voice, cooperate with others, and form a direction, if that is possible.
In every industry there ever was when standards (of cooperation) were
developed there was development in the direction the industry had set.
This chaotic system of each one doing their own thing and see where it
gets everyone seems to be coming to an end. And at this end some are
more organized to benefit from the whole than others.
In terms of debian, it is an utopian proposition to expect it to compete as
a semi-democratic institution among the dictatorships. It also unthinkable
that individuals can have an influence among organizations. The
binding licensing agreements will in the future be either abolished or
will not be enforced as much as to matter, as far as being obstacles
to corporations making money.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> - 2017-06-19 21:00 +0200
  Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-06-19 21:40 +0200
    Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-06-28 04:10 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-07-10 17:40 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-14 20:20 +0200
        Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> - 2017-07-14 22:30 +0200
          funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-15 19:30 +0200
            Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-16 13:50 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-07-16 17:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-19 13:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-07-19 23:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-20 14:10 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-20 22:20 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2017-07-21 20:40 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 03:40 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:00 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org> - 2017-07-17 00:50 +0200
              Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 03:00 +0200
                Re: funding & viability questions of GPL enforcement. "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@ebb.org> - 2017-07-17 21:40 +0200
  Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 00:20 +0200
    Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:50 +0200
      Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is  blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? Nick Boyce <nick@steelyglint.org> - 2017-07-20 16:20 +0200

csiph-web