Ricardo Campos corez23@linuxmail.org wrote:
Isn't it a BSD-style license? I'm really undecided as to which I feel is 'better', as I find one more ethically acceptable, and the other more economically viable. But then I'm neither an expert on ethics or economics!
BSD is a free licence. APSL is not. So, I'd say not. I think you have a different objective for economics to me. I want a free and fair market, while it sounds like you want a way for companies to grow fat from cheap/free labour of programmers. That's what BSD licences say to me, anyway: "here, please take all our hard work, make money from it and give us nothing back, not even the ability to fix your copy of our original work".
I have to say Rob's demo of OS X really made my jaw drop. In terms of functionality,ease of use and integration, it is exactly what people want.
http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html amongst many others.
I think Linux has a lot to learn from OS X, certainly if anyone wants it to work as a successful desktop OS.
We already have a lot of OS X's ground work at http://www.gnustep.org/ but it actually has some flaws that are more noticeable when you can see inside it. It's still quite cool, though.
I don't think that it's any coincidence that most of the people I have met who use linux are 1)in education/research, 2) hackers (I mean programmers), 3) people who work in technical jobs, network admins etc. 4) people who have *time*.
Maybe it's just that we become one of the above, empowered by the ability to do so?
Anyway, anyone who wants to hack on the foundations of a desktop can email me. We're still at the fixing window management level, sadly, but it's getting better. It's C++, so knowing either that, Xlib, C and generally how to find info would be good.