6 ms·

Yes, but what has he done that has been directed towards US laws, regulations, and policies, to protect the right to read?

_sh 15y ago
Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order and a legal document designed to protect the right to read and modify and a philosophy that has influenced an entire generation of creators...?
bad_user 15y ago
While I don't agree with the parent, as the BSD license and BSD-licensed software would have happened anyway, the GPL is the perfect example of what hackers can do against awful legislation. You see, the GPL takes the copyright system and turns it on its head. That's why it is named a copyleft license, an obvious pun. How does it do that? Well, copyright prevents distribution. The GPL rides this restriction and says that you may not distribute GPL-licensed software unless (1) you distribute it with no extra restrictions + (2) the distributed binary is either accompanied by source-code or the source-code is available on request. The GPL COULD NOT demand this if it weren't for the copyright law and in regards to freedom / protecting users rights, it works out great because nobody can abuse the GPL without legal repercussions. It's actually beautiful if you think about it and innovative - it enabled open-source / free software to really disrupt the software industry, creating the equivalent of the public commons. And this movement went viral and moved to books, music and movies. And this would have happened without the GPL, but on a much lower scale. The GPL is the spark that started the fire. BTW - to change the world you don't need to change the laws. The alternative is to make them obsolete and technology has a habit of doing that ;-)
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  You mentioned BSD and I'm wondering what's wrong with BSD? A lot of FOSS people are all about hating anything that isn't GPL but let's not forget that these licenses serve a purpose. GPL has its place but I personally distribute things I make under BSD all the time. I don't mind and in fact encourage people to take my source, close it up and make a bunch of money off it if they want or take it and give back better code. I like the idea that both of those very things happen under BSD. I understand that closed source can mean various nefarious (rhyming kind of on purpose) things go on but it isn't necessarily so.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    I haven't said there's anything wrong with BSD. Where did I say that? As you said, it serves a different purpose.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
EdiX 15y ago
The Free Software Foundation, among other things, sponsors some "political" campaigns against DRM and software patents.

_sh 15y ago

Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order and a legal document designed to protect the right to read and modify and a philosophy that has influenced an entire generation of creators...?

bad_user 15y ago

While I don't agree with the parent, as the BSD license and BSD-licensed software would have happened anyway, the GPL is the perfect example of what hackers can do against awful legislation. You see, the GPL takes the copyright system and turns it on its head. That's why it is named a copyleft license, an obvious pun. How does it do that? Well, copyright prevents distribution. The GPL rides this restriction and says that you may not distribute GPL-licensed software unless (1) you distribute it with no extra restrictions + (2) the distributed binary is either accompanied by source-code or the source-code is available on request. The GPL COULD NOT demand this if it weren't for the copyright law and in regards to freedom / protecting users rights, it works out great because nobody can abuse the GPL without legal repercussions. It's actually beautiful if you think about it and innovative - it enabled open-source / free software to really disrupt the software industry, creating the equivalent of the public commons. And this movement went viral and moved to books, music and movies. And this would have happened without the GPL, but on a much lower scale. The GPL is the spark that started the fire. BTW - to change the world you don't need to change the laws. The alternative is to make them obsolete and technology has a habit of doing that ;-)

billpatrianakos 15y ago
You mentioned BSD and I'm wondering what's wrong with BSD? A lot of FOSS people are all about hating anything that isn't GPL but let's not forget that these licenses serve a purpose. GPL has its place but I personally distribute things I make under BSD all the time. I don't mind and in fact encourage people to take my source, close it up and make a bunch of money off it if they want or take it and give back better code. I like the idea that both of those very things happen under BSD. I understand that closed source can mean various nefarious (rhyming kind of on purpose) things go on but it isn't necessarily so.
- bad_user 15y ago
  I haven't said there's anything wrong with BSD. Where did I say that? As you said, it serves a different purpose.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

EdiX 15y ago

The Free Software Foundation, among other things, sponsors some "political" campaigns against DRM and software patents.