Re: 44 addresses / JNOS 56K / Gateway Security ?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>


Do you mean the Free Software Foundation?

Matthew Pitts

From: "Dean Gibson AE7Q yahu.stuff@... [UniversalDigitalRadio]" <UniversalDigitalRadio@...>
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] 44 addresses / JNOS 56K / Gateway Security ?


On 2015-03-29 10:13, Jonathan Naylor naylorjs@... [UniversalDigitalRadio] wrote:
Why does it matter?


Your purist viewpoint is the antithesis of actually getting things done, which is the main purpose of most things that we do as amateurs.

Jonathan  G4KLX

What is COMICAL about the position of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF", the creators of the GPL), is that they have created an "LGPL" ("Lesser GPL") for use in distributing libraries.  They really don't want you to license any library you create under the LGPL,  they really would like you to use the regular GPL (see ).  They provide the LGPL for purely pragmatic reasons (ie, competition from other libraries), and it's not just that they want others to do it;  they bow to this pragmatic situation for some of their own libraries.  Because if you use their libraries and then distribute your own software, they want you to have to release all of your own source code, just because you link to their libraries.  This is a religion.

So much for "purism" , "ethics", and "evil".  Richard Stallman (the creator of the EFF: -- yes, a Snowden supporter) likes to couch his beliefs about "open source" software with words like "Freedom" (note the capitalization) and "evil".  Ken has swallowed the GPL KoolAid.

OK, they are entitled to license their libraries in any way then want.  However, other developers are not such fools.  In particular, the "RxTx" communications library is not only licensed under the LGPL, the creators (having no association with the EFF) added clauses to the LGPL license to make sure that there was no misunderstanding in regard to their software:  They allow library users of the RxTx library, to link to the library, and the user is not bound to any license for the user's software.  In other words, common sense.

Of course, the average amateur doesn't give a darn for the true value of "open source" software.  Since it is almost impossible to sell "open source" software for anything above the cost of the media, that means that the software is free in the economic sense, and that's what appeals to 99% of those that use "open source" software.  There is that old saying, "Copper wire was invented by two amateurs fighting over a penny."

Why do I say 99% (it's probably closer to 99.99%)?  Because of the several GPL packages I have released, I have never heard of anyone wanting to modify a single line of code.  One package, "SeaFlow" was wildly popular in the previous decade among Linux and Mac owners, because SeaFlow supplanted a Windows-only package ("WebFlow")from the Washington state Department of Transportation, and I received many enthusiastic complements, and a couple suggestions for modifications (they wanted me to do them), but no questions about the source after I released it.

Of the several GPL packages I released for the amateur community, the only feedback I've gotten, is that they are "too difficult to use".  A command-line program with no options is "too difficult to use"???

Entitlement abounds everywhere, I've discovered (just ask Dan Smith, the creator of "Chirp" and "D-Rats").  They should sell their $30 radios and go back to adding lights to their trucks.

-- Dean Gibson

Join to automatically receive all group messages.