3 ms·

> The idea behind this was that Freedom meant Freedom for everyone, not just Freedom for people we approved of. It's not freedom for everyone. It cannot be use

by Proven 7y ago

> The idea behind this was that Freedom meant Freedom for everyone, not just Freedom for people we approved of. It's not freedom for everyone. It cannot be used by those who do not accept the license. If they do accept it, it limits their rights to use, modify and redistribute the software within limits spelled out in the license. "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License" Most people here refuse to understand that "freedom" can't be given by a license. It can stay the same, or become restricted (when a license imposes a duty or obligation on the licensee). The ethical licenses are a nonsense. Even the name is awful (how is it ethical to attempt to restrict another person's freedom?) Thankfully no project that I know or care about uses one of those.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> how is it ethical to attempt to restrict another person's freedom? By preventing greater harm to others that would result if you didn't. Seriously, that wasn't obvious?
- jessaustin 7y ago
  I smell authoritarians...
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
> It cannot be used by those who do not accept the license. This is wrong. You don't have to accept the terms of the GPL if you use a program, only if you distribute and/or modify it. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2867/ https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2867/ From the text of the GPLv3: You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. The Affero GPL is unusual, but even there, you don't have to accept the licence merely to run a program. > If they do accept it, it limits their rights to use, modify and redistribute the software within limits spelled out in the license. Again, no, it doesn't restrict the right to use. > Most people here refuse to understand that "freedom" can't be given by a license. It can stay the same, or become restricted (when a license imposes a duty or obligation on the licensee). That's wrong. You don't have rights to use/study/distribute/modify/modify+distribute software unless the software is in the public domain, or if those rights are actively granted to you by a licence. If you happen to stumble across some source code, and it's still under copyright, and there's no licence, then you have no right to it. Same goes if you find an unfinished novel. This is why GitHub took steps to encourage people to add a clearly stated licence to their projects. If you want to make the case for permissive BSD-style licences being 'more free' than copyleft licences, then sure, that's a debate we could have, but freedom absolutely is given by licences. > how is it ethical to attempt to restrict another person's freedom? Banning kidnapping and slavery increases the total freedom in a country. Copyleft operates on a similar principle, prohibiting people from taking Free software and using it as the basis for non-Free software. The copyleft-vs-permissive-licence debate I mentioned above, is as old as Free Software. Here's an old Slashdot thread where the usual points are made: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-fast https://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-c...

by Proven 7y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> how is it ethical to attempt to restrict another person's freedom? By preventing greater harm to others that would result if you didn't. Seriously, that wasn't obvious?

jessaustin 7y ago
I smell authoritarians...

MaxBarraclough 7y ago

> It cannot be used by those who do not accept the license. This is wrong. You don't have to accept the terms of the GPL if you use a program, only if you distribute and/or modify it. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2867/ https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2867/ From the text of the GPLv3: You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. The Affero GPL is unusual, but even there, you don't have to accept the licence merely to run a program. > If they do accept it, it limits their rights to use, modify and redistribute the software within limits spelled out in the license. Again, no, it doesn't restrict the right to use. > Most people here refuse to understand that "freedom" can't be given by a license. It can stay the same, or become restricted (when a license imposes a duty or obligation on the licensee). That's wrong. You don't have rights to use/study/distribute/modify/modify+distribute software unless the software is in the public domain, or if those rights are actively granted to you by a licence. If you happen to stumble across some source code, and it's still under copyright, and there's no licence, then you have no right to it. Same goes if you find an unfinished novel. This is why GitHub took steps to encourage people to add a clearly stated licence to their projects. If you want to make the case for permissive BSD-style licences being 'more free' than copyleft licences, then sure, that's a debate we could have, but freedom absolutely is given by licences. > how is it ethical to attempt to restrict another person's freedom? Banning kidnapping and slavery increases the total freedom in a country. Copyleft operates on a similar principle, prohibiting people from taking Free software and using it as the basis for non-Free software. The copyleft-vs-permissive-licence debate I mentioned above, is as old as Free Software. Here's an old Slashdot thread where the usual points are made: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-fast https://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-c...