The purpose of the GPL is to bring freedom to the users and to discourage the use of proprietary software. The whole article postulates that proprietary software is acceptable, which is why it has no context. The GPL was never relevant to proprietary software developers because their goal is to restrict their users.
I understand that, but I think this reading of my article is too simplified.
A large part of my article has one goal: discussing the fact that the GPL has, on one hand, spurred the FLOSS ecosystem in software components, whilst on the other failed its goal of terminating the existence/relevance of proprietary software. Given the decreasing importance of desktop systems in the consumer world, I also maintain that this failure is now final, that is not subject to change before the end of mainstream relevance of desktop apps (a.k.a "there will never be a Linux desktop year").
You may disagree with this of course, but I wouldn't say that my article implies that I do not understand the GPL, as motters said.
5 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 20.2 ms ] thread/ducks and runs
A large part of my article has one goal: discussing the fact that the GPL has, on one hand, spurred the FLOSS ecosystem in software components, whilst on the other failed its goal of terminating the existence/relevance of proprietary software. Given the decreasing importance of desktop systems in the consumer world, I also maintain that this failure is now final, that is not subject to change before the end of mainstream relevance of desktop apps (a.k.a "there will never be a Linux desktop year").
You may disagree with this of course, but I wouldn't say that my article implies that I do not understand the GPL, as motters said.