2 ms·
Yes, it's good for end users, but it's not complete freedom so GNU shouldn't make that claim then in the fine print add "...but some kinds of use are restricted
by itchitawa 13y ago
Yes, it's good for end users, but it's not complete freedom so GNU shouldn't make that claim then in the fine print add "...but some kinds of use are restricted." They should be more open and say "freedom for end users but not free to modify and distribute".
- e12e 13y agoBut you are free to modify and distribute. You just aren't free change the terms under which you distribute. > "freedom for end users but not free to modify and distribute" That would be: "freedom for end users, freedom to modify and distribute - but not freedom to change terms under which (re)distribution happens". Which I think is pretty much what they are already saying?
- quadrangle 13y agohttp://dustycloud.org/blog/field-guide-to-copyleft/ http://dustycloud.org/blog/field-guide-to-copyleft/ Just read it. If you want total abolition of copyright and proprietary software, fine. If you think proprietary software is ok, you are a total hypocrite to criticize copyleft. Period.