If you throw any kind of ideology out of the window (why do we try to help each other here?) then, yes, using a solid kernel and the GNU userspace can, as Google have proven, provide you with a good basis for a product. However, just take a look at the state of Google Earth, Adobe Flash and even, to an extent, Steam to see how many problems closed source software has when developed for the GNU/Linux ecosystem. Sure, a user can get it to work but I'd hardly call it a simple prospect for developers.
On the other hand you buy yourself Windows with Visual Studio and develop an application and it can be profiled to work on pretty much all current Windows systems.
I'm not saying it is not possible to make, or make money from, closed source software on Linux I am saying you really need to take a good look at your motives and work out why you feel the need to make something closed on an open system (arguments about GNU aside) which actually makes it difficult to create closed software.
I would also ask why you're using a system some of which is licensed under an agreement you strongly disagree with? Are you a hypocrite or just trying to stir things here?

You said "Linux". Linux is kernel + coreutils - both are GPL. I.e. Linux + coreutils are as (non)free as GPL.

Linux developers are excellent at breaking binary compatibility.

So why are you not:
A) Using a BSD for licensing reasons.
or
B) Using Windows or OSX for consistency?
Are you suggesting the horrific, terrible, freedom-stealing license you despise has created a better OS than a "more free" one or a perfectly good closed-source one?

?????

I don't disagree with GPL. As I said, actually it quite well protects developer from ripoff. If you look at FFTW, pay attention to this: http://fftw.org/ :

.

I disagree only with sheeple being indoctrinated to believe GPL is free. As I said, it's most restrictive regarding end user freedom.

The truly free license is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL .

I used the word "FREEDOM" as the central theme of my statements.

You used the word "pirate" as the central theme of yours.

We both used various other words in composing our sentences.

Trying to shunt that into a discussion of the relative merits of one license over another is disingenuous and cowardly.

Do you think that one person may hold thoughts forbidden to others?

Do you think slavery and hostage taking is a good business model?

I do not.

Sometimes I use BSD license. Anyway, as I explained, I care about myself first, so I'm choosing license according to my needs, and not according to what RMS wants me to believe.

What consistency ? Mac computer is too expensive for me, and I do not like Windows. I use Linux because I like the features and because the source is open. I might switch to *BSD.

By the way, Debian can be installed with BSD kernel and GNU userland: http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ .

Ah, my apologies.
I think though the analytical semantics isn't really the point that myself or the other posters were making.
I could argue against your assessment of the GPL but I won't as I don't think it is all that relevant.

What slavery are you talking about ? If I bake bread, and you do not want to buy my bread, I do not force you to buy my bread.

You can buy from somebody else and you can bake it yourself. OTOH, I am not obliged to give away the bread I've baked for free. But I might - on occasions.

And what does hostage taking have to do with issues at hand ? In many jurisdictions reverse engineering is explicitly allowed, for example.

All of which is relevant to what, exactly?

From licenses to jurisdictions... I don't think you grasp the concept of FREEDOM.

1 members found this post helpful.

As I have stated earlier, freedom is the ability of individual to act as he wishes regardless of what other individuals wish/prescribe.

And in reality various degrees of freedom are available.

Regarding hostages- there is a thing called "vendor lockin".

Vendor locking makes you metaphorically a hostage of you vendor.

One of the ways (though a difficult one) is to use reverse engineering to break out of vendor lockin.

Other than in descriptions of articulated mechanical systems, I do not concede that there are degrees of freedom. It is a rather binary concept - you have it or you don't.

So, if I duplicate a pattern of 1's and zeros on an electronic device, am I a pirate or a FREE man?

If I share a particularly pleasing sequence of sounds with another, am I a bloodthirsty plunderer of the high seas, or a thoughtful, caring fellow human being - and a FREE man?

If I see some idea or device that looks useful to me and I decide to make one myself, am I a thief, or an industrious FREE man?

If I think a thought "owned" by another through some clever device of law, am I committing a crime, or am I a FREE man?

The very concept of intellectual property is a perversion and harmful to the human condition. In as much as we perpetuate it we are responsible for that harm.

If you do something others do not like for too long for a reason, e.g. if you make too much acoustic noise while others want to sleep, the others will react.

OTOH, if you listen to, say, loud music in headphones, others (at least, others in other homes) wouldn't even notice.

So, you have a degree of freedom to loud listen to music in headphones and you do not have a degree of freedom to listen to the same music through loudspeakers ?

Should I expect more slogans from you ?


- this is your opinion and you are entitled to have it. I with available to me degrees of freedom reject this opinion-prescription.

On the legal system in general I suggest to read http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html .