Juan J. Martínez used to talk here about Open Source and Other Things.
This is a blog in archive mode, you can read new posts at en_GB@blog
January 17, 2010
"[…] among the two primary corporate-controlled-but-dabbling-in-community-orientation distributions (aka Fedora and Ubuntu), Fedora is clearly much more software-freedom-friendly."
Bradley explains his reasons to leave Ubuntu, see: Ubuntu One server side software (non-free, and it’s future strong integration in Ubuntu Desktop), Canonical’s copyright assignment policies, ‘restricted’ is too close to ‘main’, and finally that all those problems come from a community oriented distribution based on a for-profit company.
I’m not sure if I agree with a for-profit, corporate-controlled distribution can never remain community-oriented. What do you think? Is Fedora different with Red Hat?
It sounds reasonable for me, but at the same time I can’t avoid thinking Stallman wants to think by me: not present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing. Thanks, but I can’t distinguish what’s good from what’s not.
Anyway, this isn’t interesting per se but because someone has suggested to split from the GNU project (Gnome it’s part of the GNU project, something I’ve never understood… being part of GNU it’s cool besides allowing you to put the GNU in front the name of your project? Excuse my ignorance).
I think this is just a heated discussion (call it a flame if you want to), and I don’t think the GNU Network Object Model Environment will have to change it’s name because splitting from the GNU project, although I admit it would be curious after KDE not being K Desktop Environment anymore but KDE Plasma Desktop (?).
