3 ms·

> The GPL grants you that permission so long as you follow the terms of the license. In other words, it isn't "your products", it's a joint product, and the oth

by hasenj 16y ago

> The GPL grants you that permission so long as you follow the terms of the license. In other words, it isn't "your products", it's a joint product, and the other contributor wants a say on how the joint product is delivered. I've already responded to this in another comment. The GPL doesn't "simply grant you this right". FSF think this right is essential and that it's unethical to not grant this right. If RMS simply wanted to give you a permission, he could've used a variation of the BSD/MIT licenses. > but they stay well within copyright law to change the system from within. But they still think the system is wrong. > Have you considered that perhaps it's copyright's temporary monopoly grant which is "at odds with certain capitalistic ideas"? I've heard this argument, and I don't think it's very compelling, but really what's the point? Why should anyone feel compelled to make such an argument? As if capitalism is the religion of the state, and every ideology must be compatible with it, or else!! So you have to go around and make these interpretation about what "true" capitalism is all about.

dalke 16y ago
Ahh, so you are arguing what would happen if the free software movement were able to change copyright law to what they wish. I thought you were talking about the world as it is now, and not the way the FSF would like it to be. With that in mind I think you can see how I interpreted your comment to mean that the legal expression of free software ideology embedded in the GPL, which depends on current strong copyright law, is at odds with capitalism. If that were the case then strong copyright is at odds with capitalism. I personally can consider a set of laws in which distributed software must be distributed as free software. I agree that such would be a limitation of the sorts of economics decisions you can make. As such, I can agree that it would be against "certain capitalistic ideas." However, since we (as a general culture) agree that Mr. Factory Owner may not employ child labor, may not have slaves, may not dump toxic wastes in the water system, must have a safe working environment, and so on, we are already at a point where we (as a culture) agree that "certain capitalistic ideas" are either morally toxic or at least subject to trajedy of the commons oversight. Since we (as a culture) don't have, and don't want to have, a "purely capitalistic point of view", arguments grounded in that premise are at heart faulty.

by hasenj 16y ago

dalke 16y ago

Ahh, so you are arguing what would happen if the free software movement were able to change copyright law to what they wish. I thought you were talking about the world as it is now, and not the way the FSF would like it to be. With that in mind I think you can see how I interpreted your comment to mean that the legal expression of free software ideology embedded in the GPL, which depends on current strong copyright law, is at odds with capitalism. If that were the case then strong copyright is at odds with capitalism. I personally can consider a set of laws in which distributed software must be distributed as free software. I agree that such would be a limitation of the sorts of economics decisions you can make. As such, I can agree that it would be against "certain capitalistic ideas." However, since we (as a general culture) agree that Mr. Factory Owner may not employ child labor, may not have slaves, may not dump toxic wastes in the water system, must have a safe working environment, and so on, we are already at a point where we (as a culture) agree that "certain capitalistic ideas" are either morally toxic or at least subject to trajedy of the commons oversight. Since we (as a culture) don't have, and don't want to have, a "purely capitalistic point of view", arguments grounded in that premise are at heart faulty.