3 ms·
As I said elsewhere, I do understand where you're coming from. My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts, there's also a sort of '
by AsyncAwait 6y ago
As I said elsewhere, I do understand where you're coming from. My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts, there's also a sort of 'absolute freedom', in the right-leaning libertarian kind of sense i.e. as long as one has the manpower to do it, they can do it. This just sounds like actual tyranny, if you ask me.
The BSD is probably a lot closer to that 'absolute freedom', (not entirely, still requires you to preserve certain copyright texts for example public domain is probably closest).
The GPL simply limits your ability to pass on less guarantees with the software you're distributing than you yourself have received.
- asdkjh345fd 6y ago>My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts That's everyone else's definition too. The disagreement comes from you having the underlying assumption that producing non-GPL software is causing harm, while other people do not share that assumption. Everyone agrees that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, because everyone agrees that punching me is causing harm. But a lot of people do not consider writing software to be causing harm, so they do not see a valid reason to prohibit people from writing software.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoGPL is about not passing less freedom to your users than you yourself received. That's it. You're free not to use GPL'd software, but the moment you do, it's authors are free to impose certain requirements on you, such that you preserve the freedom they gave you for your downstream users.
- asdkjh345fd 6y agoYou're simply ignoring what I said and talking past it.