I'm unfortunately late for the news of this, but the news is excellent and shows that Mark Shuttleworth really cares about Free Software, or at least about pleasing everyone, including the Free Software "purists". Although, I don't think that it is just about pleasing everyone. He really seems to be hitting the right balance in what he does and I feel this reflects real genuine commitment. I would say at this point that Mark Shuttleworth may be, in global, contributing much more to Free Software cause than he may be detributing from it by allowing some restricted software in Ubuntu repository.
I find it interesting that so many times the simplest most basic answers to some big questions end up being in a paradoxical form. Is this just a delusion (claiming that a paradoxical answer is the right one simply because it sounds deep) or there is some substance to it?
Think of this, for example.
One of these conclusions that I came up to is that the only way humans will ever live in complete peace and harmony is to unite around the fact that they are different, and not anything else.
Imagine that. Unite around the fact that we are different. That's a bit paradoxical, isn't it? That's what I mean, and this is not the only thing where I've noticed that the conclusion which carries the most likely solution to a problem of the world is in fact, a paradox.
Some have noted, or at least implied, that the article FSF released on June 29, the day GPLv3 was released, which said that Apple's iPhone might contain GPLed code and implied that Apple might find themselves infringing on the GPLv3, was FUD.
SJVN, linked to above, didn't specifically call it that, but the line where he says this makes it quite obvious:
"You know what this particular outburst from the FSF reminds me of? It reminds me of the same kind of patent claims Microsoft makes every year or so about Linux."
This could be interesting. Red Hat has already refused to do a deal with MS which would involve a patent deal racket, but apparently remains interested in the part which is being advertised by others who recently made deals with MS as a reason why such deals would be beneficial, the interoperability works.
And of course, Microsoft's officials say that the two cannot be separated. Well, of course, it is not in their interest to separate this. It should already be common knowledge that Microsoft isn't interested in interoperability here, no matter how much they are waving that card around (not as if they aren't waving their pretty much virtual patent cards either).
It's oft written in the free software community that we should promote freedom rather than simply practical benefits. but I'm stumped.
End users have looked at me like I've three heads when I explained that free software allows them to inspect and modify the code, obviously because they have no intention of doing so, ever. Also for them the idea of not using proprietary formats sounds awfully like less freedom. So I stopped saying that.
Now I say that if code is kept free, the people who like to share can keep posting software with improvements and innovations for ordinary Joes to download, and that free software is in the innovation fast lane with some examples. People then accept it's a good thing, there's something in it for them.
Many signed GNU/Linux related deals with MS lately, but I feel none were as vocal and as sharp as Linspire, because of Kevin Carmony and his precious Linspire Letters.
First there was some GPLv3 FUD, then they sign the deal, then promise it's just for delivering "better Linux" (of course, better in that it is as tainted with proprietary software as it can be) and then reiterating that, spread a bit more FUD by implying that "Linux" is splitting into two factions which is of course by no means their own fault (among others who signed themselves to the MS's side) because all they are doing is respecting Microsoft's IP and trying to make a better Linux, something others aren't willing to do.
Guys, thinking on a "world = network" tangent is one of the things that excite me the most. I'm not sure if it is the outlandish things that come out of such thinking or the fact that it is actually TRUE that makes it so exciting.
I will be writing about iCommons here, but it wont be a boring description of everything we've been doing there. Instead I will focus on a certain theme that I want to promote. In fact I feel I really need to put Libervis.com in a role of propagating that particular theme, the "world = network" theme and the related "big movement" theory.
Well.. ok enough of the deliberate abstractness...... What I wanted to pose in this topic is just one thought that came to me when thinking in terms of this new article, and wanting to simply hear your comments on it.
Have a look at this (funny!) page: get a first life. If you follow the "comments or cease and desist letters?" link, you can find this witty legalese comment from Linden Lab.
It educates the owner of the website about parody being fair use, and even gives him a license to use the modified eye-in-hand logo!
I'm always impressed with the way Apple handles marketing. A big part in their success so far has been in the fact that they are selling an experience in addition to the actual functional products. They sell that "feel good" effect.
The same is happening with iPhone and the whole hype campaign around this smartphone is gonna reach its peak at June 29, its launch date.
Is anyone here actually planning to buy it?
Well, I would strongly suggest against it. Just read this. It's just a quick glance over what this phone actually represents.. another golden cage. Who is really in control of this phone? Apple or the buyer who shells out $500 USD to have it?