4 ms·

The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to deny freedom to others. Just as I live in a free country, yet I don't have the freedom to steal my neighb

The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to deny freedom to others. Just as I live in a free country, yet I don't have the freedom to steal my neighbor's TV with no consequences. In that sense, yes, the GPL denies freedom. I guess I don't see the point of that argument though. > But I'm using it as a trivial tool to demonstrate that the GPL does not ensure the greatest possible freedom. It merely ensures the greatest possible expression of one particular kind of freedom, and it does so at the expense of others. Yes, I suppose I'm not really counting negative freedoms as freedom (since negative freedoms tend to take away freedom from others, or cause others harm). So from my perspective, the GPL takes away a bunch of negative freedoms as the cost of bestowing positive freedoms. That seems more maximally free (in the positive sense) to me than something that mixes a bunch of negative freedoms in, where the negative freedoms are allowed to cancel the positive ones. > > It really comes down to whether you believe that you (the end-user) should have the fundamental right to tinker with... > The notional maximal license also believes in this. But it does not guarantee it. Then I would argue it doesn't really believe it. No true Scotsman, etc.

bane 12y ago
> The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to deny freedom to others. Example, I would like to take GPL software and then put it into the public domain. No freedoms have been abridged, I have not prevented people from making changes to the software or tinkering with it, nor have I denied anybody the freedom to take it and put it back under some kind of license (after some derivation). In fact I would enable numerous freedoms, like the freedom for somebody to take the PD code and make changes (uninfringed), and then sell that changed code without releasing the source. The GPL prevents me from having this freedom and others from enjoying the results of my exercise of this freedom. You argue that a person who does that is unethically taking advantage of somebody else's labor, but the freedom of the originator to do the same isn't abridged either, so the originators of the labor could benefit from their own labor. Or they can mix code from incompatible licenses, a freedom prevented under the GPL (most specifically 3). Under my license arbitrary distinctions like preventing the freedom to "link" to code are eliminated. I've advanced freedom again. The trade-off is that I've removed the guarantee of perpetuating the transmission and disclosure of the source code. That's the only thing I've changed. But I haven't prevented the same thing from happening either. Under my plan somebody could make changes and also disseminate those changes via releasing the source if they wished to. Changes to the source might still thus perpetuate. But no freedom has been denied. Unlike with the GPL. The GPL also seriously erodes the freedom to earn reward for labor and virtually abolishes the freedom to earn reward due to property ownership. It's a tradeoff that sides with increasing the efficiency of labor (by allowing for reuse). But there's a large body of work on recognized, but unexercisable freedoms because the person lacks the means to exercise it. > Just as I live in a free country, yet I don't have the freedom to steal my neighbor's TV with no consequences. In that sense, yes, the GPL denies freedom. I guess I don't see the point of that argument though. Then why argue it? I'm shedding karma here, because people can't accept this inarguable point of fact. More problematic than the freedom the GPL erodes is the religious tones it takes on. People talk about "freedom" without understanding it and downvote sensible discussions of the issues with the GPL without debate. Locke keeps being brought up by somebody else, but Locke's philosophy on property and the GPL are squarely at odds and irreconcilable. > > The notional maximal license also believes in this. But it does not guarantee it. Then I would argue it doesn't really believe it. No true Scotsman, etc. There's an enormous body of work on freedom as a guarantee vs. freedoms needing to be exercised. The notional maximal license enables all freedoms, but requires them to be exercised to be enjoyed. The GPL enables and guarantees a single freedom, but at the expense of all others.
- __david__ 12y ago
  > The GPL also seriously erodes the freedom to earn reward for labor and virtually abolishes the freedom to earn reward due to property ownership. It's a tradeoff that sides with increasing the efficiency of labor (by allowing for reuse). But there's a large body of work on recognized, but unexercisable freedoms because the person lacks the means to exercise it. Translation: startups can't make their millions by selling a bunch of IP they've cobbled together from GPLed sources. Color me uncaring. In the end, if you go back to my silly ascii art graph—your argument can be summed up that the individual '->'s lack freedom when the code is GPLed. I agree. But my point is with the GPL, the overall chain has more freedom because there are many more transactions the more arrows there are in the graph and the farther to the right you go (it's really more of a tree, but I collapsed it by node type for brevity). Looking at the big picture, the GPL grants (almost paradoxically) infinitely more freedom to the world at large by the very fact that it restricts some developer freedoms. The GPL doesn't cater to developers, it was made for the end users.
  - bane 12y ago
    I'm leaving your last comment above as the conclusion of the discussion. I appreciate the lively sharing of views and enjoyed it (despite the rampant downvoting by others).

bane 12y ago

> The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to deny freedom to others. Example, I would like to take GPL software and then put it into the public domain. No freedoms have been abridged, I have not prevented people from making changes to the software or tinkering with it, nor have I denied anybody the freedom to take it and put it back under some kind of license (after some derivation). In fact I would enable numerous freedoms, like the freedom for somebody to take the PD code and make changes (uninfringed), and then sell that changed code without releasing the source. The GPL prevents me from having this freedom and others from enjoying the results of my exercise of this freedom. You argue that a person who does that is unethically taking advantage of somebody else's labor, but the freedom of the originator to do the same isn't abridged either, so the originators of the labor could benefit from their own labor. Or they can mix code from incompatible licenses, a freedom prevented under the GPL (most specifically 3). Under my license arbitrary distinctions like preventing the freedom to "link" to code are eliminated. I've advanced freedom again. The trade-off is that I've removed the guarantee of perpetuating the transmission and disclosure of the source code. That's the only thing I've changed. But I haven't prevented the same thing from happening either. Under my plan somebody could make changes and also disseminate those changes via releasing the source if they wished to. Changes to the source might still thus perpetuate. But no freedom has been denied. Unlike with the GPL. The GPL also seriously erodes the freedom to earn reward for labor and virtually abolishes the freedom to earn reward due to property ownership. It's a tradeoff that sides with increasing the efficiency of labor (by allowing for reuse). But there's a large body of work on recognized, but unexercisable freedoms because the person lacks the means to exercise it. > Just as I live in a free country, yet I don't have the freedom to steal my neighbor's TV with no consequences. In that sense, yes, the GPL denies freedom. I guess I don't see the point of that argument though. Then why argue it? I'm shedding karma here, because people can't accept this inarguable point of fact. More problematic than the freedom the GPL erodes is the religious tones it takes on. People talk about "freedom" without understanding it and downvote sensible discussions of the issues with the GPL without debate. Locke keeps being brought up by somebody else, but Locke's philosophy on property and the GPL are squarely at odds and irreconcilable. > > The notional maximal license also believes in this. But it does not guarantee it. Then I would argue it doesn't really believe it. No true Scotsman, etc. There's an enormous body of work on freedom as a guarantee vs. freedoms needing to be exercised. The notional maximal license enables all freedoms, but requires them to be exercised to be enjoyed. The GPL enables and guarantees a single freedom, but at the expense of all others.

__david__ 12y ago
> The GPL also seriously erodes the freedom to earn reward for labor and virtually abolishes the freedom to earn reward due to property ownership. It's a tradeoff that sides with increasing the efficiency of labor (by allowing for reuse). But there's a large body of work on recognized, but unexercisable freedoms because the person lacks the means to exercise it. Translation: startups can't make their millions by selling a bunch of IP they've cobbled together from GPLed sources. Color me uncaring. In the end, if you go back to my silly ascii art graph—your argument can be summed up that the individual '->'s lack freedom when the code is GPLed. I agree. But my point is with the GPL, the overall chain has more freedom because there are many more transactions the more arrows there are in the graph and the farther to the right you go (it's really more of a tree, but I collapsed it by node type for brevity). Looking at the big picture, the GPL grants (almost paradoxically) infinitely more freedom to the world at large by the very fact that it restricts some developer freedoms. The GPL doesn't cater to developers, it was made for the end users.
- bane 12y ago
  I'm leaving your last comment above as the conclusion of the discussion. I appreciate the lively sharing of views and enjoyed it (despite the rampant downvoting by others).