11 ms·

> In the strange world of OccupyGPL, that's a “restriction”, I guess because it… restricts you from placing restrictions on someone else? But that's as silly as

> In the strange world of OccupyGPL, that's a “restriction”, I guess because it… restricts you from placing restrictions on someone else? But that's as silly as saying that outlawing slavery reduces freedom, because it takes away some people's freedom to own slaves. Hey, the analogy may be inflammatory, but the logic is the same, and it doesn't make sense in either case. The freedom to take away others' freedom is not a meaningful freedom to have — the proper word for that is not "freedom" but "power". Where have I heard that before? Oh right, as usual, the FSF said this long ago: "[O]ne so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the 'freedom to choose any license you want for software you write.' We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom. This oft overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you; power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. ... We in the free software movement are not opposed to business, but we have seen what happens when a software business has the 'freedom' to impose arbitrary rules on the users of software. ... We believe you should decide what to do with the software you use; however, that is not what today's law says. Current copyright law places us in the position of power over users of our code, whether we like it or not. The ethical response to this situation is to proclaim freedom for each user, just as the Bill of Rights was supposed to exercise government power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms. That is what the GNU General Public License is for: it puts you in control of your usage of the software while protecting you from others who would like to take control of your decisions." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html

forrestthewoods 12y ago
Da fuck? "Making a program proprietary is an exercise of power." So is releasing source code and limiting what they can do with it. Or forcing them to do extra things (share source) if they do certain things (modify source). Stallman believes that linking against a DLL constitutes a derived work that would be subject to the GPL's copyleft nature. The legal validity of that belief is unknown. You're free to call that freedom if you like. I'll be over here in a corner considering it an abuse of power. "If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom." On that I do not disagree.
- naner 12y ago
  I'm not really an advocate for the GPL, but I think when people express this sentiment they are going out of their way to misunderstand things. The 'limits' imposed by the GPL just limit people from reducing the freedoms provided to the code that is covered... So it limits your ability to use GPL code to reduce the freedoms of others. In GPL-speak freedom means code transparency while you're defining freedom to mean something else (the ability to do whatever you want with code... including reducing GPL'd code transparency). It sounds convoluted to try and explain this but to me it seems pretty simple and self-explanatory.
  - millstone 12y ago
    I honestly don't think it's simple. How can I possibly use GPL code to reduce anyone's freedom? By creating some derivative work? By doing so, I have not diminished your access to anything that already exists! The way I understand it, the GPL guards against the possibility that some non-free derivative work will prove more popular, and so crowd out the free original - "to turn free software proprietary" as the FSF states it. This crowding-out may be a legitimate concern, but it's a subtle one: it's protecting code by preventing a certain class of competition, an act which may not be in the interest of users, who would probably welcome more choices. I can draw an analogy to "poison pill" provisions: they protect the company from takeovers, but often work against the interest of shareholders.
    - monochr 12y ago
      "I honestly don't think it's simple. How can I possibly use GPL code to reduce anyone's freedom? By creating some derivative work? By doing so, I have not diminished your access to anything that already exists!" Suppose you were a farmer that left town for a week or two. In that time I came in, fed your chickens and then took all the resulting eggs. How can the above be theft? I haven't diminished your access to anything you already owned!
      - 72deluxe 12y ago
        Great analogy. I have to avoid GPL and LGPL code like the plague because I have to release close-sourced commercial software for my employer, and look for BSD licensed code for my own software because I have to eat.

forrestthewoods 12y ago

Da fuck? "Making a program proprietary is an exercise of power." So is releasing source code and limiting what they can do with it. Or forcing them to do extra things (share source) if they do certain things (modify source). Stallman believes that linking against a DLL constitutes a derived work that would be subject to the GPL's copyleft nature. The legal validity of that belief is unknown. You're free to call that freedom if you like. I'll be over here in a corner considering it an abuse of power. "If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom." On that I do not disagree.

naner 12y ago
I'm not really an advocate for the GPL, but I think when people express this sentiment they are going out of their way to misunderstand things. The 'limits' imposed by the GPL just limit people from reducing the freedoms provided to the code that is covered... So it limits your ability to use GPL code to reduce the freedoms of others. In GPL-speak freedom means code transparency while you're defining freedom to mean something else (the ability to do whatever you want with code... including reducing GPL'd code transparency). It sounds convoluted to try and explain this but to me it seems pretty simple and self-explanatory.
- millstone 12y ago
  I honestly don't think it's simple. How can I possibly use GPL code to reduce anyone's freedom? By creating some derivative work? By doing so, I have not diminished your access to anything that already exists! The way I understand it, the GPL guards against the possibility that some non-free derivative work will prove more popular, and so crowd out the free original - "to turn free software proprietary" as the FSF states it. This crowding-out may be a legitimate concern, but it's a subtle one: it's protecting code by preventing a certain class of competition, an act which may not be in the interest of users, who would probably welcome more choices. I can draw an analogy to "poison pill" provisions: they protect the company from takeovers, but often work against the interest of shareholders.
  - monochr 12y ago
    "I honestly don't think it's simple. How can I possibly use GPL code to reduce anyone's freedom? By creating some derivative work? By doing so, I have not diminished your access to anything that already exists!" Suppose you were a farmer that left town for a week or two. In that time I came in, fed your chickens and then took all the resulting eggs. How can the above be theft? I haven't diminished your access to anything you already owned!
    - 72deluxe 12y ago
      Great analogy. I have to avoid GPL and LGPL code like the plague because I have to release close-sourced commercial software for my employer, and look for BSD licensed code for my own software because I have to eat.