7 ms·
> GPL is not about maximizing adoption, it's about maximizing freedom of your work and anything based upon it. Yes, but you should add that you are talking abo
by greyman 10y ago
> GPL is not about maximizing adoption, it's about maximizing freedom of your work and anything based upon it.
Yes, but you should add that you are talking about the RMS definition of freedom, not about the word freedom as it is generally understood.
- lobster_johnson 10y agoStallman's use of "free" and "freedom" are best thought of as referring to the software, not the user. I feel like a lot of commenters below are missing this distinction. The GPL puts (somewhat onerous, some would argue) limitations on the user in order for the software to remain free. Think of it as liberating the software by giving it rights.
- guelo 10y agoGPL preserves the hacker's freedom to modify the code in the hardware they own. It doesn't preserve a corporation's freedom to take the code, package it up and sell it in some other hardware. Which licenses are more free? Depends who you are and what you're trying to do.
- discodave 10y agoWhy is the RMS definition of freedom different from freedom as it is generally understood. Some dictionary definitions of freedom are: > the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. > absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government. > the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved. So the changes in GPL v3 are about maximising the freedom of your software and it's users, at the expense of curtailing the freedom of Apple/TIVO & friends to distribute it.
- smallnamespace 10y agoDRM helps maximize the freedom of rightsholders. Would you call DRM technologies 'pro-freedom'?
- kzrdude 10y agoThe assertion that there is one general and correct notion of freedom is dubious when we hear freedom being shouted misguidedly all the time (politics stuff).
- aikah 10y agoGPL ensures GPL softwares remains free of charge for the user. It isn't concerned with the person that tries to make money with GPL software. it's free as liberty, not free as "free market", though it gives the user freedom of choosing free software instead of paid one.
- davexunit 10y agoThe GPL has literally nothing to do with money.
- insulanus 10y agoNot quite. The GPL ensures that GPL software remains free to audit and modify in perpetuity. It says nothing about the cost of the liscense to the end user of the software. It's confusing, because you may think "I have the source, I can just compile it for free". But the reason that you have the source (and the binary, in some cases), is that most GPL software is also offered free of charge. As a side note, it's more practical to get usage of a piece of software with the restrictions of the GPL used, if the software is also available free of cost. Damn it, we need a different word.
- marcoperaza 10y agoGiven that the first purchaser can just turn around and resell or give it away for free, the fact that you can charge is meaningless and pedantic.
- cyphar 10y agoThere exist many companies that charge money for free software, please stop perpetuating this misrepresentation of reality. This business model has existed since the very beginning of GNU (with RMS himself selling physical copies of the Emacs source code).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- belorn 10y agoSo lets use the definition of freedom that most philosophers use when discussing liberty and not define freedom as: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws.' Personally I prefer John Loke definition: 'Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society ... and not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others'. Rules, which are common to everyone, and the CC license share-and-share-alike encapsulate in the name.