3 ms·
Freedom isn't that well defined of a concept. Fo example I may say I have the freedom to not be blasted by your loud music, whereas you might say you have the f
by AsyncAwait 6y ago
Freedom isn't that well defined of a concept. Fo example I may say I have the freedom to not be blasted by your loud music, whereas you might say you have the freedom to play it.
Both can be true to a certain extent and both are freedoms. It's just that the context and amount matters.
If a judge decides that you're indeed infringing on my freedoms by blasting the music this loud, your own freedom will be restricted.
The GPL does restrict the freedom to restrict the guarantees it provides.
- _ph_ 6y agoRight, but it tries to restrict the freedom of software authors to select the license they wish. It does try to restrict the freedom of the programmer to license the part of the software the programmer created.
- hvis 6y agoThat's not true. When you are the sole author of the program, you clearly can choose whatever license you wish. As long as you don't mooch off the efforts of others.
- nmz 6y agoFreedom is well defined, the freedom you speak of, requires a ruling body to exhert force. By implementing laws freedom itself is modified. Given that the FSF is not the ruling body of software, they should not have a say on what freedom entails. (which is why when speaking of licenses its best to refer as copyfree copyleft and so on.) IMO As a language that is used by all, its best to refer to freedom as copyfree. because that is the most loose definition and the least based on coercion.