> So basically, you want to restrict the use of a software to a specific
Not a _specific_ OS. There are _many_ open-source OS's out there and
none of them have monopolistic agenda like Apple or M$. Nor do they use
the open-source community efforts to promote their own commercial
products. Hence, having such a distinction would pretty much limit only
use of software on primarily these two platforms (and perhaps AIX and
SUN (for which there could be a clause added to remedy the exclusion,
since IBM is after all a great supporter of the oss community), and
SCO's crap for which I could not care less).
> This is against the idea of free software. I never heard of a free
Again, please read what I've stated and then respond. I am not
advocating the change of GPL, but creating a new derived license which
simply ensures that the efforts of the open-source community primarily
benefit (gasp!) us, the open-source community, not some company with
monopolistic agenda, regardless how successful (Msft) or unsuccessful
they are (Apple). IIRC GPL license allows for such provisions (i.e.
original developer may choose to restrict the change of the "about" page
in their app, and this perfectly fine by the GPL's standards).
> So GNU/Linux users are elitists because they can use command line
Taking one's statement out of the context and making further conclusions
upon that statement is not only immature and inflammatory, but it is
also plain dumb, smilies or not. It is, however, amusing how you came
about to that conclusion since you could not be farther off from the
truth than you currently are.
Being "elitist" towards outsiders who express even a mild interest in
the Linux/oss community will repel them before they even get a chance to
taste the good aspects of Linux.
I would love to hear from Paul Davis on this issue since he is one of
the most involved contributors in this community when it comes to
monetary dependence. Paul?
Ivica Ico Bukvic, composer & multimedia sculptor