5 ms·

It depends on what freedom. GPL isn't free; it's handcuffware. It's "freedom" on someone else's terms. BSD is a truly free license whereas GPL is an attempt at

by _Simon 8y ago

It depends on what freedom. GPL isn't free; it's handcuffware. It's "freedom" on someone else's terms. BSD is a truly free license whereas GPL is an attempt at an anti-capitalist license model.

dvorak365 8y ago
It’s free in a similar way to how preventing citizens from owning slaves is free.
Kim_Bruning 8y ago
The big difference between BSD and GPL (after all the legalese is said and done) is as follows: * BSD says you have the freedom to swing your fists * GPL says that your freedom to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose. That's pretty much the difference in practice. That's actually pretty similar to how our capitalist, democratic society works. (we do restrict people's freedoms where they would end up taking away freedom from someone else). Sometimes the one approach is better, sometimes the other. Apply right tool to right job, as needed. Note that it is entirely possible to earn money using free (as in speech) software, and many quite capitalist companies do so. (ps; in my limited experience in hiring expensive lawyers to resolve legal conflicts while capitalisting: the GPL appears to deliver a lot more bang for buck than MIT or BSD. In that limited domain. MIT and BSD can be quite useful in other domains! )
- millstone 8y ago
  The fist analogy doesn't work at all. BSD licenses do not permit face punching, literally or metaphorically.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
> It's "freedom" on someone else's terms. It's freedom on my terms too: GPL protects the developer and user community from malicious patents, hostile forks, lock-down attempts, bait-and-switch-to-closed.
- amarkov 8y ago
  The question is why those are legitimate things to insist on protection against. Surely a free software license couldn't say "it's forbidden to run this program on iOS" or "nobody affiliated with the US government may modify the code", even though the free software community has real concerns about walled gardens and government backdoors.
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    > why those are legitimate things to insist on protection against Because there is a track record of this things happening and damaging the projects. > Surely a free software license couldn't say "it's forbidden to run this program on iOS" Restrictions like "don't be evil, don't use it inside NSA" can be either too vague to be applicable, easy to circumvent, legally inapplicable or nonsensical. E.g. in many countries some institutions including military are not restricted by copyright law. On top of that, shipping a distribution with thousands of different licenses would be a nightmare.
  - the_af 8y ago
    What do you mean? Free software was specifically designed to be about user freedoms (and all users, not just developers). Forbidding software from running on any given platform would go against this goal. Are you asking why did they choose this goal? There are many essays explaining why this goal mattered to both FSF- and OpenSource- advocates.
    - amarkov 8y ago
      But copyleft licenses do end up preventing software from running on some platforms. For example, none of the work that goes into the Linux kernel can be made available to Windows users. I'm sure the FSF sees this as a tradeoff that has to be made in order to keep free software viable. But that's a very different story than "user freedom is everything".
      - the_af 8y ago
        What do you mean? The Linux kernel could theoretically be available to Windows users. In practice, embedding parts of the kernel in Windows under the license provisions of the Linux kernel is something Microsoft is unlikely to want (which makes sense because of their business model). Note that a lot of Free software does run on Windows, so the problem is not about Windows as a platform. This is not inconsistent with "user freedom is everything".
pjmlp 8y ago
Which is why FreeBSD has taken over the world of UNIX, and everyone gladly contributes back to it.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Except it didn't. And vendors do not contribute drivers, binary blobs get made. :) (With a minor exception of one game console.)
__jal 8y ago
It is hardly anti-capitalist. It is anti-exploitation. Granted, given the some of capitalists we currently have to put up with, it is easy to miss the distinction, but it is there. I would, however, encourage you to continue to avoid software that does not meet your ethical standards. That is what I do, and why I refuse to use software from a number of sources myself.
- gowld 8y ago
  It's literally anti-capitalist: It is specifically designed to prevent software from being a form of capital that rent can be extracted from, since Free software can be given away by anyone who has it, destroying the software's value as capital. (The Free software model, only knowledge and skill in consulting and services is useful as capital)
jasonkostempski 8y ago
Its freedom for end users. Not developers and not businesses. Because developers and businesses have proven many times, they will abuse the power granted by bad laws, licenses, agreements and code. They even exploit code intended to be good, but licensed poorly, against even the original author.

by _Simon 8y ago

It depends on what freedom. GPL isn't free; it's handcuffware. It's "freedom" on someone else's terms. BSD is a truly free license whereas GPL is an attempt at an anti-capitalist license model.

dvorak365 8y ago

It’s free in a similar way to how preventing citizens from owning slaves is free.

Kim_Bruning 8y ago

The big difference between BSD and GPL (after all the legalese is said and done) is as follows: * BSD says you have the freedom to swing your fists * GPL says that your freedom to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose. That's pretty much the difference in practice. That's actually pretty similar to how our capitalist, democratic society works. (we do restrict people's freedoms where they would end up taking away freedom from someone else). Sometimes the one approach is better, sometimes the other. Apply right tool to right job, as needed. Note that it is entirely possible to earn money using free (as in speech) software, and many quite capitalist companies do so. (ps; in my limited experience in hiring expensive lawyers to resolve legal conflicts while capitalisting: the GPL appears to deliver a lot more bang for buck than MIT or BSD. In that limited domain. MIT and BSD can be quite useful in other domains! )

millstone 8y ago
The fist analogy doesn't work at all. BSD licenses do not permit face punching, literally or metaphorically.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

> It's "freedom" on someone else's terms. It's freedom on my terms too: GPL protects the developer and user community from malicious patents, hostile forks, lock-down attempts, bait-and-switch-to-closed.

amarkov 8y ago
The question is why those are legitimate things to insist on protection against. Surely a free software license couldn't say "it's forbidden to run this program on iOS" or "nobody affiliated with the US government may modify the code", even though the free software community has real concerns about walled gardens and government backdoors.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  > why those are legitimate things to insist on protection against Because there is a track record of this things happening and damaging the projects. > Surely a free software license couldn't say "it's forbidden to run this program on iOS" Restrictions like "don't be evil, don't use it inside NSA" can be either too vague to be applicable, easy to circumvent, legally inapplicable or nonsensical. E.g. in many countries some institutions including military are not restricted by copyright law. On top of that, shipping a distribution with thousands of different licenses would be a nightmare.
- the_af 8y ago
  What do you mean? Free software was specifically designed to be about user freedoms (and all users, not just developers). Forbidding software from running on any given platform would go against this goal. Are you asking why did they choose this goal? There are many essays explaining why this goal mattered to both FSF- and OpenSource- advocates.
  - amarkov 8y ago
    But copyleft licenses do end up preventing software from running on some platforms. For example, none of the work that goes into the Linux kernel can be made available to Windows users. I'm sure the FSF sees this as a tradeoff that has to be made in order to keep free software viable. But that's a very different story than "user freedom is everything".
    - the_af 8y ago
      What do you mean? The Linux kernel could theoretically be available to Windows users. In practice, embedding parts of the kernel in Windows under the license provisions of the Linux kernel is something Microsoft is unlikely to want (which makes sense because of their business model). Note that a lot of Free software does run on Windows, so the problem is not about Windows as a platform. This is not inconsistent with "user freedom is everything".

pjmlp 8y ago

Which is why FreeBSD has taken over the world of UNIX, and everyone gladly contributes back to it.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Except it didn't. And vendors do not contribute drivers, binary blobs get made. :) (With a minor exception of one game console.)

__jal 8y ago

It is hardly anti-capitalist. It is anti-exploitation. Granted, given the some of capitalists we currently have to put up with, it is easy to miss the distinction, but it is there. I would, however, encourage you to continue to avoid software that does not meet your ethical standards. That is what I do, and why I refuse to use software from a number of sources myself.

gowld 8y ago
It's literally anti-capitalist: It is specifically designed to prevent software from being a form of capital that rent can be extracted from, since Free software can be given away by anyone who has it, destroying the software's value as capital. (The Free software model, only knowledge and skill in consulting and services is useful as capital)

jasonkostempski 8y ago

Its freedom for end users. Not developers and not businesses. Because developers and businesses have proven many times, they will abuse the power granted by bad laws, licenses, agreements and code. They even exploit code intended to be good, but licensed poorly, against even the original author.