4 ms·

The GPLs rules are only about preserving end-user freedom (including the freedom to modify and redistribute software). Saying that the GPL has "strict rules" an

by lambda 16y ago

The GPLs rules are only about preserving end-user freedom (including the freedom to modify and redistribute software). Saying that the GPL has "strict rules" and is thus the same as the App Store is like saying that putting someone in jail for kidnapping is just as bad as kidnapping in the first place, because you're restricting someone's freedom. Yes, laws and jail for kidnappers restrict their freedom, but they only constrain you from taking someone else's freedom away. Likewise, the GPL only restricts you from things you do that take away other people's freedom. If Apple just allowed its end users to have the freedom required by the GPL, there would be no conflict.

Locke1689 16y ago
No, the GPL defines explicit restrictions about what the end user can and can't do with the software. In my book, that's less freedom. Now, my tenet is just as flimsy as your tenet -- can't you see that your definition of "freedom" is flexible between people and that your freedom may not be another person's freedom? Because degrees of freedom are a subjective and relative interpretation all we can say objectively is that both the GPL and the App Store's EULA have restrictions and they both attempt to preserve an ecosystem that they see to be beneficial.
- rwmj 16y ago
  The GPL doesn't say anything at all about what the end user can do. In fact that's "rule 0": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The restrictions are on distributing the software which is quite different from use of the software.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    Distributing software is something you "do" with the software. If I meant restricting the use of the software I would have said restricting the use of the software.
    - lambda 16y ago
      The GPL doesn't restrict distributing software. Copyright does; without the GPL, you would not be allowed to copy the software at all, due to copyright laws that cover all creative works from the moment they are created, regardless of whether anyone opts in. The GPL grants you additional freedom to distribute the software, as long as you follow their rules. Now, it doesn't grant as much additional freedom as, say, the MIT license, but the only freedoms it fails to grant you are the freedom to take someone else's freedom away. You can do anything you want with the software, as long as you don't do something that limits someone else's freedom to do the same.

by lambda 16y ago

Locke1689 16y ago

No, the GPL defines explicit restrictions about what the end user can and can't do with the software. In my book, that's less freedom. Now, my tenet is just as flimsy as your tenet -- can't you see that your definition of "freedom" is flexible between people and that your freedom may not be another person's freedom? Because degrees of freedom are a subjective and relative interpretation all we can say objectively is that both the GPL and the App Store's EULA have restrictions and they both attempt to preserve an ecosystem that they see to be beneficial.

rwmj 16y ago
The GPL doesn't say anything at all about what the end user can do. In fact that's "rule 0": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The restrictions are on distributing the software which is quite different from use of the software.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Distributing software is something you "do" with the software. If I meant restricting the use of the software I would have said restricting the use of the software.
  - lambda 16y ago
    The GPL doesn't restrict distributing software. Copyright does; without the GPL, you would not be allowed to copy the software at all, due to copyright laws that cover all creative works from the moment they are created, regardless of whether anyone opts in. The GPL grants you additional freedom to distribute the software, as long as you follow their rules. Now, it doesn't grant as much additional freedom as, say, the MIT license, but the only freedoms it fails to grant you are the freedom to take someone else's freedom away. You can do anything you want with the software, as long as you don't do something that limits someone else's freedom to do the same.