3 ms·
That's a bit like saying "America isn't a free country because I can't just murder whoever I want". The GPL license does indeed restrict some things that could
by jiggy2011 14y ago
That's a bit like saying "America isn't a free country because I can't just murder whoever I want".
The GPL license does indeed restrict some things that could be regarded as freedoms, for example the freedom to distribute a closed source version (distribution only, you are allowed to create a closed source derivative as long you keep it to yourself).
It's a bit like "you have the freedom to do anything you want apart from restrict another person's freedom"
- betterth 14y agoThat's a bad analogy: America never promises freedom in her founding documents and constitution. She promises us Liberty, which is a very different concept than freedom. In software, however, they are not arguing for liberty and the rule of law, they're arguing for true freedom. I guess they have drawn a line in the sand and said that any less free is unacceptable, however, more free is also unacceptable.
- jiggy2011 14y agoI believe the FSF are interested in liberty rather than "true freedom" (at least in my understanding of the terms). I believe Stallman originally wanted to call it "libre software" but there wasn't an equivalent word in english so instead he went with "free software" and thus the confusion was born. The line in the sand the GPL draws is specifically for the purpose of preventing closed versions of open source software (which would be against the original authors wishes). There are of course more liberal licenses such as the MIT license which do allow you to do this.