|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
My understanding of reading the piece is thT Canononical for whatever reason
have chosen to use a GPL2 bootlaoder, and the FSF would prefer them to use GRUB2
under GPL3 .. what did I misunderstand?
What I fail to understand is why the FSF cannot just allow Canononical to make
their ree choice of which to use, and this is the part I find troublesome. My
reading of the piece was that the FSF had gone to some lengths to try and
persuade Canonical to use a GPL3 bootloader and now they have declined, they
have "gone public" about it.
Personally, I find this distasteful and worrying. I appreciate this is at odd
with your view of the situation, but it is my opinion. I'd feel a lot happier if
having made their suggestions to Canonical and clarified the position, the FSF
simply shrugged and said "oh well, its all GPL .. they are free to use
whichever they like" .
I suspect my views will be ignored, but as a long time Linux user (both
personally and through multiple businesses), I feel I have a stake in the future
of Open Source, especially on servers. All my companies products run on LInux,
and we distribute Linux based applications to corporates, so a live and active
Linux community is very much in my interest .. and I don't believe that the
route the FSF takes is always the best for the community. As ever, opinions may
vary.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
