3 ms·

Exactly. GPL is not free software in the real sense of the word.

• kazinator 6y ago
  Both the BSD2 licenses and GPL licenses try to legally prevent the existence of something. The BSD2 license tries to legally prevent the existence of the source code without the copyright notice preserved. The GPL license tries to prevent (1) binary code distributed without matching, buildable source code (2) source code or binary code redistributed in combination with GPL-incompatible pieces, (3) ... BSD argument: the fewer things whose existence a license tries to prevent, the freer it is. GNU argument: existence of certain things impinges on freedom; if we curtail their existence, we increase freedom. The only way in which the GNU argument rings true for me is that users of proprietary software unwittingly create a world in which people who would like to avoid proprietary software are effectively coerced into using it. The choice not to use it exists, but at the cost of being economically or socially disadvantaged in some way. A software choice that doesn't affect anyone else is strictly personal, even if it is uninformed; it is itself an exercise in freedom. E.g. if someone makes a binary-only screensaver program for GNU/Linux that costs $5.99 (and contains no malware or anything of the source) the choice to use it is of no consequence. If someone likes that screensaver, it's their choice and their $5.99, and it doesn't affect anyone else even in the same household or organization.