4 ms·
Why would (1) be necessary? GPL software is not consigned to the public domain or ownership automatically transferred to the FSF. It is still the property of th
by spangry 10y ago
Why would (1) be necessary? GPL software is not consigned to the public domain or ownership automatically transferred to the FSF. It is still the property of the original developer, who are simply distributing and licensing its use only to those who comply with a certain set of conditions.
Proprietary licences will sometimes prohibit resale or modification, for instance. Licences like the GPL do the exact opposite: they allow modification and resale under the condition that these subsequent derivative works are licensed under the same terms (if distributed).
I would have thought being able to decide the conditions under which others can use your private property is an idea the most ardent capitalist would support.
- jcora 10y agoEnforcing the GPL requires the state. Which is what I think he was aiming at. But then I don't understand how that's compatible with 1.
- throwaway729 10y agoI stated that (1) and (2) constitute a thorough critique Stallman's worldview re: software, which IMO is quite a bit more than just the GPL.
- trav4225 10y agoI agree 100% with your last paragraph. I think the issue for many libertarians, however, is this: should thought be considered personal property, thus under legal protection by the state?