[News] "Berniethlon" - The End | ANN.lu |
Posted on 01-Dec-2002 18:46 GMT by Gareth Knight (Edited on 2002-12-01 21:44:11 GMT by Christian Kemp) | 221 comments View flat View list |
"It saddens me greatly to announce that, effective today, any of my Amiga-related software development has been mothballed indefinitely. This means that, pending any unexpected developments, there won't be any "Amithlon v2" (aka "Berniethlon"), nor any further support or add ons for "Amithlon v1" by me."
Read more at the Amithlon site
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
"Berniethlon" - The End : Comment 156 of 221 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 02-Dec-2002 10:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 150 (Steffen Haeuser): @Steffen,
First, let me state that my own opinion is that there is a place for both proprietary and non-proprietary software in the market. I don't find proprietary software unethical, nor do I find the FSF's philosophy offensive.
> Ah, I see. But then I don't see an "ethic" problem about proprietary
> software either. After all it's the decision of the person who writes
> the software. Making claims about his moral standards based on if he
> writes propietary software or not, THAT I call ethically tainted :)
> If you don't like it - don't use the software. But don't call it
> "ethically tainted". On the other hand I see a clear ethic problem
> with dictating people how they should release their software (to not
> be "ethically tainted").
<snip>
> Also it is a clearly subjective statement, and should NOT be in a legal
> document (and I consider the GPL a legal document, and I guess the same
> applies to the GPL FAQ). If they think it is not subjective, then they
> at least need to include clear proof. If they cannot provide proof they
> should simply remove it.
Let's get a few things straight: the GPL can be considered a legal document, but the FAQ is not. The latter merely clarifies the FSF's interpretation of the GPL and since they commissioned it for their own puproses, it represents the "spirit" of the GPL.
Now, you may feel offended by the philosophy of the FSF, but you cannot challenge their right to hold to that philosophy, nor can you deny them the right to say whatever they like according to that philosophy.
> They can have their opinions without including such stuff in their
> official documents (and maybe annoying other people).
Why should they care if you're annoyed by their stance or not? Do you think they're bothered that Microsoft are much more than "annoyed" about it?
Let's face it, if you find the stance of the FSF offensive, you could protest by not using their software or software released under their license, either as a developer or end user. That would be what is commonly called "putting your money where your mouth is", but I expect that would cause you some difficulties in your current position. *grin* |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|