3 ms·

Was that available in 2006? If so, I guess he just meant the book, which is even more bizarre. So he won't sign any book not published by a "free as in speech

Was that available in 2006? If so, I guess he just meant the book, which is even more bizarre. So he won't sign any book not published by a "free as in speech" publishing house? Curiouser and curiouser.

pg 18y ago
Sure, that file hasn't been changed in years. I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive.
- andreyf 18y ago
  I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive. I doubt it. Both the MIT and BSD licenses are listed as 'free software' licenses on the FSF website: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
tjr 18y ago
I don't think RMS is opposed to all non-free books, but believes that books meant as reference or instruction ought to be free. And as pg mentioned, the fact that the code is free for (implicitly) any use whatsoever means that the code could be used in proprietary software without issue, and thus the code isn't free. Was RMS opposed to the book, the code, or both? I suspect both, and since it appears that he quickly recognized the book, he had probably already contemplated his opposition to it at some prior time. His behavior in this situation surely would strike most as odd, but he seems to just be living by his ideals as much as possible. You may not see non-free reference books or non-free software as unethical, but he does, and wants no positive connection with it.
- gwniobombux 18y ago
  RMS doesn't have a problem with the ACL code (obviously he would prefer the GPL for it, but I reckon he would consider it free software), as he doesn't have a problem with GNU/Linux distributions shipping e.g. BSD-licensed code. And, yes, he is opposed to non-free books, though he distinguishes between those which should be modifiable and those which shouldn't be; for more on this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html#opinions http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.ht... On a different note: there's is no reason to call him names for not signing ACL, he just takes a principled stand. Why should he sign it anyway? If I had a copy of ACL (yes, I am poor) I wouldn't want anybody but pg to sign it.
  - tjr 18y ago
    Touché, you are correct. The ACL code would be not be considered "copyleft", but it would be conisdered "free".

pg 18y ago

Sure, that file hasn't been changed in years. I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive.

andreyf 18y ago
I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive. I doubt it. Both the MIT and BSD licenses are listed as 'free software' licenses on the FSF website: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/

tjr 18y ago

I don't think RMS is opposed to all non-free books, but believes that books meant as reference or instruction ought to be free. And as pg mentioned, the fact that the code is free for (implicitly) any use whatsoever means that the code could be used in proprietary software without issue, and thus the code isn't free. Was RMS opposed to the book, the code, or both? I suspect both, and since it appears that he quickly recognized the book, he had probably already contemplated his opposition to it at some prior time. His behavior in this situation surely would strike most as odd, but he seems to just be living by his ideals as much as possible. You may not see non-free reference books or non-free software as unethical, but he does, and wants no positive connection with it.

gwniobombux 18y ago
RMS doesn't have a problem with the ACL code (obviously he would prefer the GPL for it, but I reckon he would consider it free software), as he doesn't have a problem with GNU/Linux distributions shipping e.g. BSD-licensed code. And, yes, he is opposed to non-free books, though he distinguishes between those which should be modifiable and those which shouldn't be; for more on this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html#opinions http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.ht... On a different note: there's is no reason to call him names for not signing ACL, he just takes a principled stand. Why should he sign it anyway? If I had a copy of ACL (yes, I am poor) I wouldn't want anybody but pg to sign it.
- tjr 18y ago
  Touché, you are correct. The ACL code would be not be considered "copyleft", but it would be conisdered "free".