3 ms·

There are many different kinds of freedom, it is true, I dont recall RMS ever talking about maximizing freedom in any kind of general sense, and I suspect it is

There are many different kinds of freedom, it is true, I dont recall RMS ever talking about maximizing freedom in any kind of general sense, and I suspect it is because to do so would be nonsense. The phrase 'maximize freedom' is meaningless without context, too many freedoms are contradictory. It is freedom as in speech, because it is the freedom for users of code to take that code and use it to express their own ideas, and to redistribute that expression to their friends and anyone else who may be interested. In that context, code is literally a form of speech, and the software an expression of an idea. Under the freedoms provided by something like the GPL I can take someone else's idea, change it to suit myself and redistribute that change. The GPL clearly does not attempt to maximize the freedom of developers or distributors who wish to deny end users the freedoms that the GPL provides. Again, this is ground that seems to be covered over and over. It is hard for me to believe that someone like you, who is clearly intelligent, has clearly thought about the subject and discussed it previously, has truly never had it explained to them, or has entirely failed to understand the distinction. I hope this has helped a little.

baddox 16y ago
My above comment (the grandparent of this comment) was a clarification of my earlier comment. The disagreement between RMS and myself indeed comes down to my personal definition of "freedom" and my personal views on intellectual property protection. I have indeed heard your argument before, and I suppose I can concede that RMS's philosophy is internally logical given his definition/usage of "freedom." Still, I find the GPL to be more restrictive and less free than the public domain, and therefore less desirable. I take issue with the way RMS and GNU uses the words "free" and "freedom" because I see their philosophy not as a principled desire for freedom, but rather merely as a desire for certain restrictions on freedom (granted, a different set of restrictions than proprietary software licenses). I think that "The Free Software Movement" is an unfortunate title. Not only do they have to constantly remind average readers of their definition of "free as in speech, not as in beer," they also should be clarifying their definition of "free" for people like myself who believe that freedom is an utmost concern. Perhaps a better though less catchy title for their movements would be "The Publicly Available Source Code Movement."
- bandushrew 16y ago
  The GPL clearly does provide restrictions on the use of software released under it. 'people like myself who believe that freedom is an utmost concern' which freedoms matter to you, and for whom? without context your statement is pretty much content free. IME almost everyone believes that freedom is an utmost concern, even Brutalog, the Despotic Dictator Of Zoogtzargle believed that he was fighting the good fight for freedom. The interesting differences seem to lie in the context under which they define the term.

baddox 16y ago

My above comment (the grandparent of this comment) was a clarification of my earlier comment. The disagreement between RMS and myself indeed comes down to my personal definition of "freedom" and my personal views on intellectual property protection. I have indeed heard your argument before, and I suppose I can concede that RMS's philosophy is internally logical given his definition/usage of "freedom." Still, I find the GPL to be more restrictive and less free than the public domain, and therefore less desirable. I take issue with the way RMS and GNU uses the words "free" and "freedom" because I see their philosophy not as a principled desire for freedom, but rather merely as a desire for certain restrictions on freedom (granted, a different set of restrictions than proprietary software licenses). I think that "The Free Software Movement" is an unfortunate title. Not only do they have to constantly remind average readers of their definition of "free as in speech, not as in beer," they also should be clarifying their definition of "free" for people like myself who believe that freedom is an utmost concern. Perhaps a better though less catchy title for their movements would be "The Publicly Available Source Code Movement."

bandushrew 16y ago
The GPL clearly does provide restrictions on the use of software released under it. 'people like myself who believe that freedom is an utmost concern' which freedoms matter to you, and for whom? without context your statement is pretty much content free. IME almost everyone believes that freedom is an utmost concern, even Brutalog, the Despotic Dictator Of Zoogtzargle believed that he was fighting the good fight for freedom. The interesting differences seem to lie in the context under which they define the term.