zlacker

>>gnufx+(OP)
He laments that users "don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest", but wasn't this the point of Open Source as compared to Free Software, to refocus the messaging from the user's freedoms to the economic benefit for companies?

The Free Software Definition mentions "user" 22 times and "freedom" 79 times, whereas the Open Source Definition has zero occurrences of these terms. It doesn't seem surprising that the user freedom message isn't getting through if you completely scrub it from the messaging.

>>ptx+a5
Agreed. And if BP really wants to change this, he needs to focus on Free Software as a starting point, not Open Source. He complains about RedHat/IBM circumventing the GPL but completely missing the fact that the "more permissive" open source licenses actually condone such behavior. They would even allow IBM to not provide source to their own customers, nevermind prohibiting redistribution.

IMHO the biggest threat to Free Software is the proliferation of open source software. And so the biggest threat to all the open source users/lovers is their own lack of a meaningful philosophy on licensing.

>>phkahl+th
I do not understand bruces concern, maybe someone can make it clear to me.

The source IS made available to software. The license clearly says you must make it availble in the same method you get the binaries, which is what is happening here.

What "circumvention" is going on ?

>>worthl+PN1
The GPL also guarantees the right to redistribute the software and sources you received. This is the part that IBM/RedHat are essentially circumventing, by canceling your access to new patches and versions of RHEL if you chose to exercise this right. This may be legal, but it certainly goes against the intent and spirit of the GPL, as Stallman himself has said.