3 ms·

I'm with you. I've become more sympathetic to Stallman's philosophy in recent years, but it's really only "freedom 1"[1] that I find potentially valuable. The o

I'm with you. I've become more sympathetic to Stallman's philosophy in recent years, but it's really only "freedom 1"[1] that I find potentially valuable. The other freedoms (such as 2, which effectively abolishes copyright) would destroy the industry if they were forcibly applied to all software. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

fsflover 5y ago
If you only have freedom 1, you must be a software developer (with a lot of free time) to benefit from that.
- Ajedi32 5y ago
  The important part of freedom 2 (freely distributing patches to copyrighted software) is already allowed by existing copyright law. You own the copyright to your patches, not the company whose software you're patching. Extending that freedom to allow distributing the end result of those patches to people who don't have a license to use the original software (as freedom 2 does) would just be another, slightly less direct way of abolishing software copyright.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > would just be another, slightly less direct way of abolishing software copyright Which is the right thing to do. Copyright creates artificial monopolies and harms users, as was predicted by Stallman: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor.... There should be a different, just way to be paid for software.
    - Ajedi32 5y ago
      > There should be a different, just way to be paid for software. Fantasy land. Open source projects have been looking for such a way for decades now, with no luck. Copyright has so far proven to be the only practical, "just" way to make software development viable as a business. Copyright does not in and of itself "harm" users, unless you consider having to pay for the goods you use to be "harm". The harms described in the article you linked could be mitigated by freedom 1 alone (combined with the portion of freedom 3 that's already allowed under existing law, as discussed).

fsflover 5y ago

If you only have freedom 1, you must be a software developer (with a lot of free time) to benefit from that.

Ajedi32 5y ago
The important part of freedom 2 (freely distributing patches to copyrighted software) is already allowed by existing copyright law. You own the copyright to your patches, not the company whose software you're patching. Extending that freedom to allow distributing the end result of those patches to people who don't have a license to use the original software (as freedom 2 does) would just be another, slightly less direct way of abolishing software copyright.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > would just be another, slightly less direct way of abolishing software copyright Which is the right thing to do. Copyright creates artificial monopolies and harms users, as was predicted by Stallman: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor.... There should be a different, just way to be paid for software.
  - Ajedi32 5y ago
    > There should be a different, just way to be paid for software. Fantasy land. Open source projects have been looking for such a way for decades now, with no luck. Copyright has so far proven to be the only practical, "just" way to make software development viable as a business. Copyright does not in and of itself "harm" users, unless you consider having to pay for the goods you use to be "harm". The harms described in the article you linked could be mitigated by freedom 1 alone (combined with the portion of freedom 3 that's already allowed under existing law, as discussed).