zlacker

Stallman covered this in a (IMHO) very well thought out article: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...

His article is specifically about pretend free/open source licenses that restrict what software can be used for. But the conclusion applies to similar behaviors around the entire free/open source ecosystem like conferences: it will just drive participants away and strengthen the position of proprietary solutions instead.

>>Hideou+(OP)
Bridging Stallman's article to the issue at hand of sponsorship, I find it hard to believe that because he's fine with say Oracle using his code that he would also be fine with giving them a platform as a sponsor.

I don't actually know his position on this, but mean to communicate I see the use of free software and the sponsorship issue as separate issues.

>>Hideou+(OP)
That is about licenses, not about community participation, let alone community policy or sponsorships. Those are all very different things with very different considerations.

(Signed, someone who absolutely does not want military contractors in their community, but feels that a license is the wrong place to enforce that.)

>>Pareto+B2
You've already commented ten times in this thread. If you don't know, maybe don't say anything?

>>Pareto+B2
If Oracle wanted to give a bunch of money to the FSF and sponsor them? I would think RMS would be overjoyed by that development. The beauty of *GPL is that it can't be used exclusively to the benefit of one party (Oracle). It respects the freedom of the user. That's the whole point.

>>powera+03
Do you know if Stallman would platform Oracle by allowing them to be a sponsor?