I'm not *so* annoyed by the fact that the source code doesn't have to be given to anyone, just all who have the bianries. I will still support freedom for all over freedom for those who have the binaries though.
However, if you read the page on the GNU homepage they have three reasons why they recommend the GPL over the APSL though. Reason 1 (allows linking to proprieatary bits) is IMO not that good a reason. If parts of the program are non free then I want free parts over those anyway. Reason 3 is crap. Dont even ask me what it is it's so crap. Although maybe they just too used to recursion.
Reason 2.
"All changes must be submitted to Apple."
Fuck off.
And again only certain sections of Mac OSX are covered by the APSL. If you are OK using at least partially non free software then fine use a Mac. I will however choose not to.
edit : THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON ANY THING COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL. It is my choice to try and avoid obtaining non free software if it can be avoided - I do not expect it to be yours also.
quote:
Yeah, flap's right about the GPL thing, fury... go to http://www.lindows.com and try to get the source or binaries. You have to be paying them before you get anything that way. I was startled when I learned that that's OK under the GPL (In my opinion, it's a load of #!@%, but, that's just me )
You should not have to be paying them, only have a copy of the binaries. If Lindows is requiring that you pay them to get the source I say they get back in their goddamn box. And then we burn the box.
[ August 09, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]