4 ms·

> I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard Just because Stallman is the most vocal voice behind Free Software Movement doesn't mean he owns freedom

by chatman 13y ago

> I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard Just because Stallman is the most vocal voice behind Free Software Movement doesn't mean he owns freedom or free software. He is doing a wonderful job of bringing about awareness of free software (not just "open" software).

Sanddancer 13y ago
If Stallman is doing such a wonderful job, why are parties, like the various BSDs, making a concerted effort to move to software that is not bound by the restrictions on distribution the organization he leads requires? I'd argue that in releasing the GPLv3, with its increased politicized language, and increased restrictions on use, has fragmented the Free Software community, and made their goals all that more difficult to reach.
- belorn 13y ago
  Lets first not confuse the issue too much, and note that the number of GPL licensed software projects is increasing by each year. The "fragmentation" you are talking about is not a clean cut. GPLv3 added a bunch compatibility with GPLv2 incompatible license, which for example MPL users was quite happy about. This has clearly helped brining the free software community closer, rather than more fragmented. As for any added restrictions, GPLv3 added two things exactly: 1#) they added a clause that says users should have the right to exercise the permission given by the license to devices those users own. Adding technical, rather the legal restrictions is equally restrictive to the user. 2#) They copied the patent clause from apache license, and included the term "patent agreement" to it. If you do not intend to add technical restrictions to customers owned devices, and you or your business partners don't intend to sue for patents when people use software that you distribute under GPL, GPLv3 will give the exact same legal instructions as GPLv2. Many BSD projects approves of Apple use of BSD. Apple will add technical restrictions to devices owned by their customers, and Apple will sue for patents if they see a business edge in doing so. GPLv3 and FSF do not approve, and that cause the BSD and GPLv3 to view Apple in different light. If you need to take a "side", feel free to do so, but I won't see either BSD or FSF as evil, nor do I think its appropriate to view their disagreement in that light.

by chatman 13y ago

Sanddancer 13y ago

If Stallman is doing such a wonderful job, why are parties, like the various BSDs, making a concerted effort to move to software that is not bound by the restrictions on distribution the organization he leads requires? I'd argue that in releasing the GPLv3, with its increased politicized language, and increased restrictions on use, has fragmented the Free Software community, and made their goals all that more difficult to reach.

belorn 13y ago
Lets first not confuse the issue too much, and note that the number of GPL licensed software projects is increasing by each year. The "fragmentation" you are talking about is not a clean cut. GPLv3 added a bunch compatibility with GPLv2 incompatible license, which for example MPL users was quite happy about. This has clearly helped brining the free software community closer, rather than more fragmented. As for any added restrictions, GPLv3 added two things exactly: 1#) they added a clause that says users should have the right to exercise the permission given by the license to devices those users own. Adding technical, rather the legal restrictions is equally restrictive to the user. 2#) They copied the patent clause from apache license, and included the term "patent agreement" to it. If you do not intend to add technical restrictions to customers owned devices, and you or your business partners don't intend to sue for patents when people use software that you distribute under GPL, GPLv3 will give the exact same legal instructions as GPLv2. Many BSD projects approves of Apple use of BSD. Apple will add technical restrictions to devices owned by their customers, and Apple will sue for patents if they see a business edge in doing so. GPLv3 and FSF do not approve, and that cause the BSD and GPLv3 to view Apple in different light. If you need to take a "side", feel free to do so, but I won't see either BSD or FSF as evil, nor do I think its appropriate to view their disagreement in that light.