3 ms·

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to disagree with something in a manner that I can read. I voted you up just for that. > I think you are taking it out of

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to disagree with something in a manner that I can read. I voted you up just for that. > I think you are taking it out of context. Edit: Oh, okay, on third read I see what you mean. I stand by my comment, though: sure, he says that the license doesn't take away your freedom, and implies that since you're free to rewrite your own, you are still free. How is that freedom to do what you will with the software? That's the rub. I'm free to change careers to taxidermist, too, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

timtadh 16y ago
The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to point out that this is the freedom GPL gives you. If you use GPL software you will never be in the position where you can't share it with you neighbor. If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. Thus, the GPL is consistent with RMSs ethical stance. However, as you have pointed out definitions of free and freedom vary. For you GPL does not free but rather chains you up; virally spreading to other work you would like to keep private. Thus, you are prevented from using GPL software and feel less free. Freedom is a tricky word.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  > If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more correct). You can't have half freedom -- there is no ambiguity. Either you are free to do what you will with what is given to you, or you are not. There is no free with restrictions; that's called a catch. To be clear, too, what the FSF says and what those who subscribe to the belief say are often two different things, as evidenced in other places in this thread. What pains me the most is that any criticism of the GPL is automatically interpreted as trolling.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    The problem is people attack the GPL hold up the BSD as if it's without restrictions. But it is (granted, the restrictions are fairly simple to address, their are restrictions places on you, and if you don't follow them, you are in the same boat as the GPL). > There is no free with restrictions In this case, the only option is to write it yourself, as even things put into the public domain can have a catch (Actually, I think their is a license that basically does with you'd think putting something into the pubic domain does, I just forget the name). So basically... > So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. This is true of pretty much all licensed code, including BSD.
    - jedsmith 16y ago
      > (Actually, I think their is a license that basically does with you'd think putting something into the pubic domain does, I just forget the name). CC0? https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ > This is true of pretty much all licensed code, including BSD. Couldn't agree more. Don't call it Free, and don't try to associate Free with the GPL at the expense of everything else (which seems to be the push). Libre too. Because if anything, the GPL is more restrictive than alternative licenses. That's my gripe.
      - rick888 16y ago
        Sometimes I almost feel like Stallman intentionally used the word 'free' in the license to confuse people. Many people think that it means you can do whatever you want with it and get in legal trouble down the line. This is why I won't use any GPLd libraries in any of my projects. It's too risky.
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        I believe it's: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ though I don't really remember. > the GPL is more restrictive than alternative licenses. So, you don't like the GPL. That's fair. However, not everyone has the same goals as you. Your main contention at the start, if I understood you correct, was that, we should be sharing and not repeating ourselves. I write something, publish it, share it, and you should be able to use it for your project without having to worry about licenses. And you see that as more free then with licenses that have arduous restrictions, like the GPL (Because, while the BSD does have restrictions, they are fairly easy to overcome). If I'm wrong with your overall view here, apologies. Essentially, you want what people who use the GPL want: a community of sharing. You want it via choice, GPL users want it enforced. And that's where GPL users see the value in a license: they help push your agenda. So while BSD gives other people more freedom to do what they want with the code, it does nothing directly to push people toward that way of thinking. My personal opinion is it's all fairly annoying. I just want to program. =)

timtadh 16y ago

The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to point out that this is the freedom GPL gives you. If you use GPL software you will never be in the position where you can't share it with you neighbor. If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. Thus, the GPL is consistent with RMSs ethical stance. However, as you have pointed out definitions of free and freedom vary. For you GPL does not free but rather chains you up; virally spreading to other work you would like to keep private. Thus, you are prevented from using GPL software and feel less free. Freedom is a tricky word.

jedsmith 16y ago
> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more correct). You can't have half freedom -- there is no ambiguity. Either you are free to do what you will with what is given to you, or you are not. There is no free with restrictions; that's called a catch. To be clear, too, what the FSF says and what those who subscribe to the belief say are often two different things, as evidenced in other places in this thread. What pains me the most is that any criticism of the GPL is automatically interpreted as trolling.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  The problem is people attack the GPL hold up the BSD as if it's without restrictions. But it is (granted, the restrictions are fairly simple to address, their are restrictions places on you, and if you don't follow them, you are in the same boat as the GPL). > There is no free with restrictions In this case, the only option is to write it yourself, as even things put into the public domain can have a catch (Actually, I think their is a license that basically does with you'd think putting something into the pubic domain does, I just forget the name). So basically... > So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. This is true of pretty much all licensed code, including BSD.
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    > (Actually, I think their is a license that basically does with you'd think putting something into the pubic domain does, I just forget the name). CC0? https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ > This is true of pretty much all licensed code, including BSD. Couldn't agree more. Don't call it Free, and don't try to associate Free with the GPL at the expense of everything else (which seems to be the push). Libre too. Because if anything, the GPL is more restrictive than alternative licenses. That's my gripe.
    - rick888 16y ago
      Sometimes I almost feel like Stallman intentionally used the word 'free' in the license to confuse people. Many people think that it means you can do whatever you want with it and get in legal trouble down the line. This is why I won't use any GPLd libraries in any of my projects. It's too risky.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      I believe it's: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ though I don't really remember. > the GPL is more restrictive than alternative licenses. So, you don't like the GPL. That's fair. However, not everyone has the same goals as you. Your main contention at the start, if I understood you correct, was that, we should be sharing and not repeating ourselves. I write something, publish it, share it, and you should be able to use it for your project without having to worry about licenses. And you see that as more free then with licenses that have arduous restrictions, like the GPL (Because, while the BSD does have restrictions, they are fairly easy to overcome). If I'm wrong with your overall view here, apologies. Essentially, you want what people who use the GPL want: a community of sharing. You want it via choice, GPL users want it enforced. And that's where GPL users see the value in a license: they help push your agenda. So while BSD gives other people more freedom to do what they want with the code, it does nothing directly to push people toward that way of thinking. My personal opinion is it's all fairly annoying. I just want to program. =)