4 ms·
Your distinction between "users" and "developers" is meaningless to me. Why does FSF get to make that distinction, but GitHub cannot do the same for "ICE" and "
by nemothekid 7y ago
Your distinction between "users" and "developers" is meaningless to me. Why does FSF get to make that distinction, but GitHub cannot do the same for "ICE" and "other humans".
All in all, the FSF is arguing for restrictions about how one class of individuals may use what they produce and for the benefit of the other class. Just like how FSF prevents other developers from using their products to lock other users out of their software, similarly, the employees are asking to prevent ICE from using their products against the questionable imprisonment of other human beings.
- Thorrez 7y agoYeah I do see there are a lot of similarities. But I think the main difference lies in that copyleft limits itself purely to the realm of controlling how modified software is distributed. The only thing it limits is how modified software is distributed. The only thing it requires is how modified software is distributed. When a developer writes software to be used by others, it's necessary for the developer to decide how to distributed it, and copyleft provides an answer. Copyleft doesn't venture past the developer's necessary role. On the other hand, limiting providing stuff to ICE ventures out of the developer's necessary question of how to distribute software and now starts thinking about human suffering, jails, politics, etc. You've gone past the question of how to distribute software, and are now thinking about broader topics.
- leereeves 7y ago> Just like how FSF prevents other developers from using their products to lock other users out of their software Developers are allowed to create commercial or otherwise restricted software with FSF tools like gcc.