4 ms·

That's exactly the kind of semantics shenanigans the grandparent is talking about. The article you linked to uses a very specific definition of freedom that may

That's exactly the kind of semantics shenanigans the grandparent is talking about. The article you linked to uses a very specific definition of freedom that may or may not be shared by others intuitively, and uses that specific definition to argue that restricting certain uses are not actually restricting freedom but restricting another concept that they excluded from their definition of freedom in the first place.

thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
The GNU GPL and similar copy-left licenses are freedom-preserving. They ensure that software licensed under the GPL (or similar license) grants users the four fundamental freedoms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en) and that those freedoms cannot be taken away by copies, forks, or derivative works. If you want your software completely unrestricted, then the GPL is not what you want, but don't be surprised if someone creates a proprietary work using the completely unrestricted software. The choice is yours.
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  > They ensure that software licensed under the GPL (or similar license) grants users the four fundamental freedoms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en) and that those freedoms cannot be taken away by copies, forks, or derivative works. Yes, the F.S.F. has decided that those four freedoms are the only fundamental ones to care about and calls it some absolute semantic of freedom. Anyone can decree that one of those is not important, or add a fifth. And even within the F.S.F.'s framework there are problems. The G.C.C. had to be given a licence exception for the runtime it links against, otherwise arguably anything compiled with it would become a derivative product of it, and thus subject to the G.P.L.. The argument is that that prohibits the freedom to run the software for any purpose; the F.S.F. has always said that writing a clause in a licence to stop software from being used to make proprietary software would make it nonfree. So even there, the G.P.L. without such exceptions would create nonfree software if applied to compilers with a runtime.
  - thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
    >> Yes, the F.S.F. has decided that those four freedoms are the only fundamental ones to care about and calls it some absolute semantic of freedom. >> Anyone can decree that one of those is not important, or add a fifth. Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this.) Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this.) Which freedoms do you disagree with and why? What freedoms are missing that you would like to see added? >> The G.C.C. had to be given a licence exception for the runtime it links against, otherwise arguably anything compiled with it would become a derivative product of it, and thus subject to the G.P.L. You are conflating GCC as free software with software created using GCC as a compiler. The runtime exception has been in place for quite a while and is part of the reason why GCC is very widely used. I would argue that the four freedoms are also part of the reason why GCC has been so successful.
    - Blikkentrekker 5y ago
      > Which freedoms do you disagree with and why? > What freedoms are missing that you would like to see added? I am not so small a mind to be concerned with semantics debates and the definition of “freedom”. Purely in the sense of what I personally desire, as in rational egotism, I would wish for all software to exist for me free of charge, with all source code available, with a copious options system, and that it be written in a programming language I am competent in and follows the style guides I find easiest to reaed. That is a wish, not a moral dogma; moral dogmata are Stallman's domain and I consider any man who would seriously believe that things can be morally right or wrong to be of quæstionable rationality. > You are conflating GCC as free software with software created using GCC as a compiler. I'm doing no such thing; I'm simply pointing out that the G.C.C. would probably not be free software without the exception. > The runtime exception has been in place for quite a while and is part of the reason why GCC is very widely used. > I would argue that the four freedoms are also part of the reason why GCC has been so successful. I'm fairly certain it's the biggest reason is simply that it's a very good and gratis compiler.
jppittma 5y ago
I don't think the point is entirely semantic. Saying that freedom means doing whatever you want is a very juvenile understanding of the concept. If you generalized that to laws that aren't just about software, but say, about violence, you'd wind up at the conclusion that laws that prevent theft and violence restrict freedom, when in the bigger picture it couldn't be further from the truth. Restricting other people's freedom to violence means I'm free to walk the streets without fear of harm, likewise, restricting your freedom to close source and sell my software means your end user is free to know what's running on his/her computer.
- ketzu 5y ago
  Or it might lead to the conclusion that there are conflicting freedoms and reducing freedom may be unavoidable due to their conflicting nature instead of being inherently wrong. Making these kinds of decisions a balancing act based on which freedoms we value more or seem more apropriate. That would reduce the usefulness of the word "freedom" as absolute good though.

thesuperbigfrog 5y ago

The GNU GPL and similar copy-left licenses are freedom-preserving. They ensure that software licensed under the GPL (or similar license) grants users the four fundamental freedoms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en) and that those freedoms cannot be taken away by copies, forks, or derivative works. If you want your software completely unrestricted, then the GPL is not what you want, but don't be surprised if someone creates a proprietary work using the completely unrestricted software. The choice is yours.

Blikkentrekker 5y ago
> They ensure that software licensed under the GPL (or similar license) grants users the four fundamental freedoms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en) and that those freedoms cannot be taken away by copies, forks, or derivative works. Yes, the F.S.F. has decided that those four freedoms are the only fundamental ones to care about and calls it some absolute semantic of freedom. Anyone can decree that one of those is not important, or add a fifth. And even within the F.S.F.'s framework there are problems. The G.C.C. had to be given a licence exception for the runtime it links against, otherwise arguably anything compiled with it would become a derivative product of it, and thus subject to the G.P.L.. The argument is that that prohibits the freedom to run the software for any purpose; the F.S.F. has always said that writing a clause in a licence to stop software from being used to make proprietary software would make it nonfree. So even there, the G.P.L. without such exceptions would create nonfree software if applied to compilers with a runtime.
- thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
  >> Yes, the F.S.F. has decided that those four freedoms are the only fundamental ones to care about and calls it some absolute semantic of freedom. >> Anyone can decree that one of those is not important, or add a fifth. Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this.) Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this.) Which freedoms do you disagree with and why? What freedoms are missing that you would like to see added? >> The G.C.C. had to be given a licence exception for the runtime it links against, otherwise arguably anything compiled with it would become a derivative product of it, and thus subject to the G.P.L. You are conflating GCC as free software with software created using GCC as a compiler. The runtime exception has been in place for quite a while and is part of the reason why GCC is very widely used. I would argue that the four freedoms are also part of the reason why GCC has been so successful.
  - Blikkentrekker 5y ago
    > Which freedoms do you disagree with and why? > What freedoms are missing that you would like to see added? I am not so small a mind to be concerned with semantics debates and the definition of “freedom”. Purely in the sense of what I personally desire, as in rational egotism, I would wish for all software to exist for me free of charge, with all source code available, with a copious options system, and that it be written in a programming language I am competent in and follows the style guides I find easiest to reaed. That is a wish, not a moral dogma; moral dogmata are Stallman's domain and I consider any man who would seriously believe that things can be morally right or wrong to be of quæstionable rationality. > You are conflating GCC as free software with software created using GCC as a compiler. I'm doing no such thing; I'm simply pointing out that the G.C.C. would probably not be free software without the exception. > The runtime exception has been in place for quite a while and is part of the reason why GCC is very widely used. > I would argue that the four freedoms are also part of the reason why GCC has been so successful. I'm fairly certain it's the biggest reason is simply that it's a very good and gratis compiler.

jppittma 5y ago

I don't think the point is entirely semantic. Saying that freedom means doing whatever you want is a very juvenile understanding of the concept. If you generalized that to laws that aren't just about software, but say, about violence, you'd wind up at the conclusion that laws that prevent theft and violence restrict freedom, when in the bigger picture it couldn't be further from the truth. Restricting other people's freedom to violence means I'm free to walk the streets without fear of harm, likewise, restricting your freedom to close source and sell my software means your end user is free to know what's running on his/her computer.

ketzu 5y ago
Or it might lead to the conclusion that there are conflicting freedoms and reducing freedom may be unavoidable due to their conflicting nature instead of being inherently wrong. Making these kinds of decisions a balancing act based on which freedoms we value more or seem more apropriate. That would reduce the usefulness of the word "freedom" as absolute good though.