9 ms·

Quote: For software to be truly free, “users have to have control to run the program as they wish and to study the program’s source code and change it,” Stallma

by lr 10y ago

Quote: For software to be truly free, “users have to have control to run the program as they wish and to study the program’s source code and change it,” Stallman said. “This is based on two essential freedoms: to make exact copies and to copy and distribute your modified versions as you wish.” The distribution part describes the BSD Licence, not the GPL. With the GPL, you are not free to "distribute your modified version as you wish." With the GPL, if you distribute a modified version to others, you must provide the modifications. That's not freedom to choose. Stallman's idea of freedom in terms of the GPL is that, if you don't like the many pages of terms, then you are free to choose to not use the software, which is a freedom you already have. If you have to have as many pages of stipulations as the GPL has, I can't see it as freedom. The BSD license is, in my opinion, a free license, as you release it, and the consumer of it is truly free to do what they want with it.

mike-cardwell 10y ago
> With the GPL, you are not free to "distribute your modified version as you wish." Yes you are. Unless you opt of that freedom by creating non-free software. Supporters of the GPL are are not concerned with the self created problems of creators of non-free software.
- dragandj 10y ago
  So, excluding the "as you wish" part. You are not free to distribute it as you wish, but as the GPL directs you. (I support both GPL and BSD style OSS, and I am usually pro-Stallman, but the OP really has a good point here)
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Yes, the OP (lr) does have a point. But so does mike-cardwell. Think in terms of generations. Generation 1 (G1) writes the original software, and makes it available under either the GPL or BSD license. G2 receives it, modifies it, and passes it on to G3. Now, under the GPL, G3 receives G1's and G2's software with all the rights intended by G1's author. That's a restriction on G2, but it's a freedom to G3 (and also a restriction, if G3 is going to modify it for G4). Under the BSD, G3 gets G1's code with all the rights given by the author, and possibly gets G2's code with no rights at all. That's a freedom to G2, but a restriction to G3. Which is "right", or even just better? I don't know. But I think it's important to notice that in both cases, freedom is being both given and taken away, just from different people.
- catdog 10y ago
  It depends onto what "as you wish" is applied here. You may >>distribute<< it to whom you wish, when you wish and under the conditions you wish. What you can not do as you wish is to dictate further restrictions to the receiver after the distribution process is over.
zepolen 10y ago
GPL enforces "general freedom" by removing your right to freedom. BSD removes "general freedom" by giving you the right to freedom
snarfy 10y ago
Your view is developer centric. For someone that does not develop software, the restriction on distribution is irrelevant. The GPL is more free for the users. BSD is more free for the developers. There are far, far more users in the world than there are developers.
- ex_amazon_sde 10y ago
  This. Also, users are often unaware of what Open Source components are used in a software or a device they use. Organization reselling MIT/BSD products with some rebranding and marketing can mislead the users into thinking their products are entirely made from scratch. This: - prevents power users from getting in touch with the original developers and becoming active contributors (testing, bug reporting...) - discourages users from learning to code - prevents power users from getting features / fixes / security updates from the original developer - removes the opportunity for the original developers (and others) to receive donations from the users or be paid to work on the project - fragments the community
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  >There are far, far more users in the world than there are developers. The discrepancy would be even higher if you hinder the ability for developers to earn money through the GPL. Money has to come from somewhere, usually that is non-free software or ads. I wonder how much free or open source software is truly independent of non-free software. I would argue almost none. Many OSS developers work at a company producing non-free software, enabling them to create free software in their free time. The big foundations are supported by the big software companies. Most companies producing free software do so for a market of non-free software developers. If you decrease the freedom of developers you also decrease the ability for users to do anything, because there would be much less software. Software would be a small elite circle. The world is a complex place, fundamentalism very rarely accounts for that.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  What use is the GPL to someone who is not a developer? Serious, non-snarky question. If you don't have the ability to modify or interpret the source code due to lack of time or knowledge, what exactly is the benefit?
gonvaled 10y ago
What is freer, a society where it is legal to kill each other, or a society where killing is illegal?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  On this question, ceteris ain't paribus.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    Sure it is! In one society, killing is legal. In the other it is not. That's the only difference. In this construct there are less differences than between GPL and BSD.
chippy 10y ago
The way to start thinking about Free Software is to focus on the first word of the Stallman quote: "Users" Users are the people which Free Software is aimed at being around. We often consider our right when we work or publish or develop software, but Free Software is concerned with our users (of course we are also users of other peoples software too, if that makes it easier to understand),
ex_amazon_sde 10y ago
> If you have to have as many pages of stipulations as the GPL has, I can't see it as freedom. Mad Max definition of freedom? Freedom from slavery, freedom of association and freedom of speech require quite complex legal framework to be clearly defined and therefore enforceable.
bane 10y ago
Public Domain (e.g. SQLite) is the freeest possible license. Anybody can do literally anything with it. Even things that might infringe on some future freedoms, like not ensuring source code versions of modification are available. The freedoms to make unfree, i.e. not right, choices is strictly more freedom than the GPL. The GPL tries to make it so that the only choice is to do the right thing, but in a set of choices (i.e. freedoms), the right thing is strictly a subset of all possible freedoms. Stallman wants, real hard, for this restriction of freedoms to be viewed as somehow "more free", and is fairly hardline about it. I wish he'd stop using freedom as his motivator and just talk about ensuring information access, which is really what his goal is.
- prodigal_erik 10y ago
  The usual reductio ad absurdum is: In another world, you are allowed to sell yourself into slavery. In this one, you are not. How can the world containing slaves be the one that's more free?
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    In other words, the code is free until it is added to, becomes proprietary and - if a network effect adheres - then that proprietary version can dominate and in effect extinguish the public domain version. Certainly extinguish nearly all its value. The once-again-enslaved code lives and thrives, the freeman code perishes, or nearly so. That's a good argument, but the whole problem is created by an IP system that perverts the concept behind copyright. Paintings don't prevent other paintings from competing, code with a network effect or lock in does. Copyright should either never have been applied to code, or be for a very short period. Let's say, four years or eight years. Then BSDL code going proprietary isn't a threat, it's a bonus: more free code soon enough.
arca_vorago 10y ago
This is the kind of word twisting I expected to hear. The bottom line is that bsd is freedom for the devs, and gpl is freedom for the users. Devs are also users, but users are not devs. RMS is going to be looked back at in history and people are going to wonder why so few listened to him, hes a man ahead of his time. The other thing I expect to hear is "RMS is just so abrasive, nasty, weird, extreme...." Trite and old responses.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  While I mostly agree with you, I do think that once we have moved to a non-GPL world, nobody (or very few) will care or know about the alternative. People get just used to the current state of affairs, even if that means not having rights that they do not even know are possible.
davexunit 10y ago
The freedom to deny freedom to others is not freedom.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Yes, if it makes the system in its whole more free. According to you, a society with the freedom to kill is more free than one without that freedom.
falcolas 10y ago
The point of the GPL is to ensure that free code remains free. So long as you do not try and restrict someone else's access to free code and modifications to it, you do not run afoul of the GPL. Put another way, if an end user gets a product which includes free code, they should also have access to the source code. All of the legalese is merely an attempt to codify this simple concept into the language of law. Ultimately, as a developer, if you want to use GPL'ed code in your own projects, you need to be prepared to pass on those freedoms you're taking advantage of. Otherwise, write it your own damned self. :)
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Or find the (almost always available, almost always higher quality) equivalent under a license that doesn't try to make software into a religion. That option has served me well for over a decade now.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    > doesn't try to make software into a religion This seems silly - why does having a point of view grounded in reality (too much software actively works against its users), constitute a religion? Is the UN is also a religion, because they uphold that basic human rights exist and should be enforced? > That option has served me well for over a decade now. Yup, that is the other option, though you're bound by their license agreements as well. They just tend to focus more on waiving liability and responsibility.
- X86BSD 10y ago
  This is such an absurd fallacy that FSF nuts have been using since at least the early 90s. The GPL does not ensure jack squat. It ensures source code availability as much as the BSDL does. Consider the following function: defmodule Jail do def jls() do System.cmd "ls", ["-la"], into: IO.stream(:stdio, :line) end end Regardless! of which license that code is released under, that function is now open source, for the entire world to see and use. Period. It is never going away, it's never going to be unavailable. Or locked up. Or "closed". And "closed"? How stupid a statement is that about open source. Look, you cannot close open source! You can use it but the same open source code you are using is still out there and available! You can't make it disappear. What you CAN do is ADD to that code. It's called adding value. And that added value code is yours to do with as you wish. Release it open source or not. I don't give a crap, my function is still free, still open source, and still available for anyone to use no matter what you have done with your copy of it. So don't give me this crap the GPL ensures code "remains free", it doesn't. That is a load of hogwash. And always has been. The point of the GPL is to force others to release their value added code. To virally infect non free software to become GPL licensed open source code. And before you say "no one forces you to use GPL'ed code", you are right no one does, but then don't also claim your code is free. It's not. The bottom line is the GPL accomplishes nothing the BSDL does not already accomplish. Except forcing anyone who uses it to license their value added code under the GPL and play by some socialist zealots rules. The GPL is a one way technology blackhole. It sucks up other code licensed under more liberal/free terms but can't be used by them in reciprocation. And your last statement is classic GPL thinking! "Play by MY rules or I am taking my ball and going home!" How freedom loving. We could all learn to embrace such a wonderful concept of freedom as that.
sethish 10y ago
Because something has less legal text does not imply that it is _more_ free. It implies that it changes the default behavior of the law _less_ than a longer text. The BSD license defaults to however the law would otherwise resolve copyright issues. The argument of the GPL is that the default of the law is not sufficient.
rbanffy 10y ago
> With the GPL, you are not free to "distribute your modified version as you wish." Precisely. You don't have the freedom to deny others the freedoms you enjoyed. It's by design. The GPL was designed to keep everyone free, not just the first developers to touch something.
liw 10y ago
I've followed, and sometimes participated in, variations of this discussion since 1989. I wrote up an article about this topic on the Yakking blog, recently: http://yakking.branchable.com/posts/comparative-freeness/ http://yakking.branchable.com/posts/comparative-freeness/ It's not a useful discussion that will ever go well, so I'm not surprised it's a big subthread on HN.

by lr 10y ago

mike-cardwell 10y ago

> With the GPL, you are not free to "distribute your modified version as you wish." Yes you are. Unless you opt of that freedom by creating non-free software. Supporters of the GPL are are not concerned with the self created problems of creators of non-free software.

dragandj 10y ago
So, excluding the "as you wish" part. You are not free to distribute it as you wish, but as the GPL directs you. (I support both GPL and BSD style OSS, and I am usually pro-Stallman, but the OP really has a good point here)
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Yes, the OP (lr) does have a point. But so does mike-cardwell. Think in terms of generations. Generation 1 (G1) writes the original software, and makes it available under either the GPL or BSD license. G2 receives it, modifies it, and passes it on to G3. Now, under the GPL, G3 receives G1's and G2's software with all the rights intended by G1's author. That's a restriction on G2, but it's a freedom to G3 (and also a restriction, if G3 is going to modify it for G4). Under the BSD, G3 gets G1's code with all the rights given by the author, and possibly gets G2's code with no rights at all. That's a freedom to G2, but a restriction to G3. Which is "right", or even just better? I don't know. But I think it's important to notice that in both cases, freedom is being both given and taken away, just from different people.
catdog 10y ago
It depends onto what "as you wish" is applied here. You may >>distribute<< it to whom you wish, when you wish and under the conditions you wish. What you can not do as you wish is to dictate further restrictions to the receiver after the distribution process is over.

zepolen 10y ago

GPL enforces "general freedom" by removing your right to freedom. BSD removes "general freedom" by giving you the right to freedom

snarfy 10y ago

Your view is developer centric. For someone that does not develop software, the restriction on distribution is irrelevant. The GPL is more free for the users. BSD is more free for the developers. There are far, far more users in the world than there are developers.

ex_amazon_sde 10y ago
This. Also, users are often unaware of what Open Source components are used in a software or a device they use. Organization reselling MIT/BSD products with some rebranding and marketing can mislead the users into thinking their products are entirely made from scratch. This: - prevents power users from getting in touch with the original developers and becoming active contributors (testing, bug reporting...) - discourages users from learning to code - prevents power users from getting features / fixes / security updates from the original developer - removes the opportunity for the original developers (and others) to receive donations from the users or be paid to work on the project - fragments the community
allendoerfer 10y ago
>There are far, far more users in the world than there are developers. The discrepancy would be even higher if you hinder the ability for developers to earn money through the GPL. Money has to come from somewhere, usually that is non-free software or ads. I wonder how much free or open source software is truly independent of non-free software. I would argue almost none. Many OSS developers work at a company producing non-free software, enabling them to create free software in their free time. The big foundations are supported by the big software companies. Most companies producing free software do so for a market of non-free software developers. If you decrease the freedom of developers you also decrease the ability for users to do anything, because there would be much less software. Software would be a small elite circle. The world is a complex place, fundamentalism very rarely accounts for that.
Karunamon 10y ago
What use is the GPL to someone who is not a developer? Serious, non-snarky question. If you don't have the ability to modify or interpret the source code due to lack of time or knowledge, what exactly is the benefit?

gonvaled 10y ago

What is freer, a society where it is legal to kill each other, or a society where killing is illegal?

jessaustin 10y ago
On this question, ceteris ain't paribus.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Sure it is! In one society, killing is legal. In the other it is not. That's the only difference. In this construct there are less differences than between GPL and BSD.

chippy 10y ago

The way to start thinking about Free Software is to focus on the first word of the Stallman quote: "Users" Users are the people which Free Software is aimed at being around. We often consider our right when we work or publish or develop software, but Free Software is concerned with our users (of course we are also users of other peoples software too, if that makes it easier to understand),

ex_amazon_sde 10y ago

> If you have to have as many pages of stipulations as the GPL has, I can't see it as freedom. Mad Max definition of freedom? Freedom from slavery, freedom of association and freedom of speech require quite complex legal framework to be clearly defined and therefore enforceable.

bane 10y ago

Public Domain (e.g. SQLite) is the freeest possible license. Anybody can do literally anything with it. Even things that might infringe on some future freedoms, like not ensuring source code versions of modification are available. The freedoms to make unfree, i.e. not right, choices is strictly more freedom than the GPL. The GPL tries to make it so that the only choice is to do the right thing, but in a set of choices (i.e. freedoms), the right thing is strictly a subset of all possible freedoms. Stallman wants, real hard, for this restriction of freedoms to be viewed as somehow "more free", and is fairly hardline about it. I wish he'd stop using freedom as his motivator and just talk about ensuring information access, which is really what his goal is.

prodigal_erik 10y ago
The usual reductio ad absurdum is: In another world, you are allowed to sell yourself into slavery. In this one, you are not. How can the world containing slaves be the one that's more free?
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  In other words, the code is free until it is added to, becomes proprietary and - if a network effect adheres - then that proprietary version can dominate and in effect extinguish the public domain version. Certainly extinguish nearly all its value. The once-again-enslaved code lives and thrives, the freeman code perishes, or nearly so. That's a good argument, but the whole problem is created by an IP system that perverts the concept behind copyright. Paintings don't prevent other paintings from competing, code with a network effect or lock in does. Copyright should either never have been applied to code, or be for a very short period. Let's say, four years or eight years. Then BSDL code going proprietary isn't a threat, it's a bonus: more free code soon enough.

arca_vorago 10y ago

This is the kind of word twisting I expected to hear. The bottom line is that bsd is freedom for the devs, and gpl is freedom for the users. Devs are also users, but users are not devs. RMS is going to be looked back at in history and people are going to wonder why so few listened to him, hes a man ahead of his time. The other thing I expect to hear is "RMS is just so abrasive, nasty, weird, extreme...." Trite and old responses.

gonvaled 10y ago
While I mostly agree with you, I do think that once we have moved to a non-GPL world, nobody (or very few) will care or know about the alternative. People get just used to the current state of affairs, even if that means not having rights that they do not even know are possible.

davexunit 10y ago

The freedom to deny freedom to others is not freedom.

gonvaled 10y ago
Yes, if it makes the system in its whole more free. According to you, a society with the freedom to kill is more free than one without that freedom.

falcolas 10y ago

The point of the GPL is to ensure that free code remains free. So long as you do not try and restrict someone else's access to free code and modifications to it, you do not run afoul of the GPL. Put another way, if an end user gets a product which includes free code, they should also have access to the source code. All of the legalese is merely an attempt to codify this simple concept into the language of law. Ultimately, as a developer, if you want to use GPL'ed code in your own projects, you need to be prepared to pass on those freedoms you're taking advantage of. Otherwise, write it your own damned self. :)

oldmanjay 10y ago
Or find the (almost always available, almost always higher quality) equivalent under a license that doesn't try to make software into a religion. That option has served me well for over a decade now.
- falcolas 10y ago
  > doesn't try to make software into a religion This seems silly - why does having a point of view grounded in reality (too much software actively works against its users), constitute a religion? Is the UN is also a religion, because they uphold that basic human rights exist and should be enforced? > That option has served me well for over a decade now. Yup, that is the other option, though you're bound by their license agreements as well. They just tend to focus more on waiving liability and responsibility.
X86BSD 10y ago
This is such an absurd fallacy that FSF nuts have been using since at least the early 90s. The GPL does not ensure jack squat. It ensures source code availability as much as the BSDL does. Consider the following function: defmodule Jail do def jls() do System.cmd "ls", ["-la"], into: IO.stream(:stdio, :line) end end Regardless! of which license that code is released under, that function is now open source, for the entire world to see and use. Period. It is never going away, it's never going to be unavailable. Or locked up. Or "closed". And "closed"? How stupid a statement is that about open source. Look, you cannot close open source! You can use it but the same open source code you are using is still out there and available! You can't make it disappear. What you CAN do is ADD to that code. It's called adding value. And that added value code is yours to do with as you wish. Release it open source or not. I don't give a crap, my function is still free, still open source, and still available for anyone to use no matter what you have done with your copy of it. So don't give me this crap the GPL ensures code "remains free", it doesn't. That is a load of hogwash. And always has been. The point of the GPL is to force others to release their value added code. To virally infect non free software to become GPL licensed open source code. And before you say "no one forces you to use GPL'ed code", you are right no one does, but then don't also claim your code is free. It's not. The bottom line is the GPL accomplishes nothing the BSDL does not already accomplish. Except forcing anyone who uses it to license their value added code under the GPL and play by some socialist zealots rules. The GPL is a one way technology blackhole. It sucks up other code licensed under more liberal/free terms but can't be used by them in reciprocation. And your last statement is classic GPL thinking! "Play by MY rules or I am taking my ball and going home!" How freedom loving. We could all learn to embrace such a wonderful concept of freedom as that.

sethish 10y ago

Because something has less legal text does not imply that it is _more_ free. It implies that it changes the default behavior of the law _less_ than a longer text. The BSD license defaults to however the law would otherwise resolve copyright issues. The argument of the GPL is that the default of the law is not sufficient.

rbanffy 10y ago

> With the GPL, you are not free to "distribute your modified version as you wish." Precisely. You don't have the freedom to deny others the freedoms you enjoyed. It's by design. The GPL was designed to keep everyone free, not just the first developers to touch something.

liw 10y ago

I've followed, and sometimes participated in, variations of this discussion since 1989. I wrote up an article about this topic on the Yakking blog, recently: http://yakking.branchable.com/posts/comparative-freeness/ http://yakking.branchable.com/posts/comparative-freeness/ It's not a useful discussion that will ever go well, so I'm not surprised it's a big subthread on HN.