2 ms·
I don't think the article was saying that the GPL is the wrong choice, but that focusing completely on the license misses the point. The article was more about
by hvs 17y ago
I don't think the article was saying that the GPL is the wrong choice, but that focusing completely on the license misses the point. The article was more about the dogmatic stand that certain people within the free software community have taken. Is identi.ca "better" because it uses the GPL but has a closed platform while Twitter uses closed source but has an open platform?
- bitdiddle 17y agoI see your point. I'm not familiar with identi.ca, presumably a Twitter competitor, but I'd say the answer is no if by open platform one means the ability for programmers to interact with the service and build value on it. I don't think the GPL had this usage in mind when it was written.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago"I don't think the GPL had this usage in mind when it was written." I think that's the author's point: freedom and openness are not the same thing. The GPL makes software free in the sense that any programmer can see, use and modify the code and must also make their own use free as well. Twitter, by contrast, makes its application open in that it offers a simple, powerful and permissive API to third party developers. They understand the positive network externality in allowing others to enhance and build on their own product, which makes it more valuable to everyone. That openness is also a kind of freedom, but it's not the freedom that Stallman has in mind. Of course, as Torvalds has shown with his shepherding of the Linux project, freedom and openness can certainly coexist and reinforce each other.