5 ms·

"Stallman created the GPL because he cared about user freedom." vs. "The GPL attempts to force people and businesses to release their source code. There is no

"Stallman created the GPL because he cared about user freedom." vs. "The GPL attempts to force people and businesses to release their source code. There is nothing wrong with that, except I don't think it qualifies as "free software". I want anybody to be able to do anything they want with my programs and/or its source code."[1] And I agree pretty much with the latter. 1. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5935 http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5935

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
This entails giving your users freedom, yet they can take it away from theirs.
- istvan__ 11y ago
  free·dom ˈfrēdəm/Submit noun the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. I don't think that restraining what the users can do or have to do while using your "free" software can hold up against the definition of freedom. I think what you are talking about is the moral superiority here, you are thinking that you are in a better position to define freedom for users that is different from the definition in the dictionary. This is pretty common patter in the society nowadays. Anyways, I am sticking to the original definition. :)
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    As your interpretation of freedom requires the freedom to enslave others, it's not something I would support as a social good.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Does true freedom include being bound to a duty to protect that freedom? With GPL, it works within the existing legal system to ensure that you have full freedom with GPL software as long as you continue to give such freedom to those who use your own versions of GPL. It reminds me of the issue with a democracy. Does a true democracy allow the voters to replace the democracy with another form of government (say a theocracy) or does a true democracy uphold that the one choice they cannot make is to remove democracy (individually they can stop voting, but they cannot take the vote away from anyone else). Or take the question of a free market. Given a free market, no man is bound as a slave by default. But does a fully free market allow for a man to sell himself into slavery (and to what degree, as taking on debt might be considered a really light form of indentured servitude, college debt which cannot be discharged could be considered a stronger form, and child support where one can be sentenced to jail could be considered full indentured servitude)? All of these seem to share a core underlying question, perhaps even an underlying paradox. I'm still not sure what it is, though it does remind me a bit of Russel's paradox in an absolutely rigorless way.
coldpie 11y ago
> The GPL attempts to force people and businesses to release their source code. LOL No. The cost of using GPL code is that you have to release your source code. Just like the cost of using some proprietary software is $X. If you don't want to pay that price, don't use the software.
- istvan__ 11y ago
  Exactly as you said, if you want to use GPL you have to do something, while if you want to use BSDL you don't. Surprisingly the definition of freedom: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Now you tell me which of these licenses are closer to the definition.
  - davexunit 11y ago
    Is the freedom to restrict someone else's freedom really a freedom? Here's a little haiku by RMS: Using GPL is encroaching on our rights to encroach on yours
  - coldpie 11y ago
    I'm not really interested in dictionary-lawyering definitions. I'm most concerned about what I, the end user, can do with the software I obtain. To me, it's very important that I be able to modify the software I use. GPL guarantees I will be able to do that forever. BSD does not.
    - istvan__ 11y ago
      If you are not interested in the dictionary definition, than please provide your dictionary so we can have a discussion in your language. Until that happens I will use the definitions from the dictionary. Thank you in advance.
  - mordocai 11y ago
    To be fair, with nearly every license you have to do something. GPL just has you do extra things. Almost every license requires you to include the Copyright notice and copy of the license along with your code and usually in the running program as well. Of course, that's a ton easier than being required to release your source code and not DRM the binaries.
yarrel 11y ago
Nobody is forced to release their source code. They just can't release binaries without the source, as they would be preventing other people from doing anything they want with it. Arguing against that on the basis of freedom is hypocritical.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

This entails giving your users freedom, yet they can take it away from theirs.

istvan__ 11y ago
free·dom ˈfrēdəm/Submit noun the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. I don't think that restraining what the users can do or have to do while using your "free" software can hold up against the definition of freedom. I think what you are talking about is the moral superiority here, you are thinking that you are in a better position to define freedom for users that is different from the definition in the dictionary. This is pretty common patter in the society nowadays. Anyways, I am sticking to the original definition. :)
- pessimizer 11y ago
  As your interpretation of freedom requires the freedom to enslave others, it's not something I would support as a social good.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

Does true freedom include being bound to a duty to protect that freedom? With GPL, it works within the existing legal system to ensure that you have full freedom with GPL software as long as you continue to give such freedom to those who use your own versions of GPL. It reminds me of the issue with a democracy. Does a true democracy allow the voters to replace the democracy with another form of government (say a theocracy) or does a true democracy uphold that the one choice they cannot make is to remove democracy (individually they can stop voting, but they cannot take the vote away from anyone else). Or take the question of a free market. Given a free market, no man is bound as a slave by default. But does a fully free market allow for a man to sell himself into slavery (and to what degree, as taking on debt might be considered a really light form of indentured servitude, college debt which cannot be discharged could be considered a stronger form, and child support where one can be sentenced to jail could be considered full indentured servitude)? All of these seem to share a core underlying question, perhaps even an underlying paradox. I'm still not sure what it is, though it does remind me a bit of Russel's paradox in an absolutely rigorless way.

coldpie 11y ago

> The GPL attempts to force people and businesses to release their source code. LOL No. The cost of using GPL code is that you have to release your source code. Just like the cost of using some proprietary software is $X. If you don't want to pay that price, don't use the software.

istvan__ 11y ago
Exactly as you said, if you want to use GPL you have to do something, while if you want to use BSDL you don't. Surprisingly the definition of freedom: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Now you tell me which of these licenses are closer to the definition.
- davexunit 11y ago
  Is the freedom to restrict someone else's freedom really a freedom? Here's a little haiku by RMS: Using GPL is encroaching on our rights to encroach on yours
- coldpie 11y ago
  I'm not really interested in dictionary-lawyering definitions. I'm most concerned about what I, the end user, can do with the software I obtain. To me, it's very important that I be able to modify the software I use. GPL guarantees I will be able to do that forever. BSD does not.
  - istvan__ 11y ago
    If you are not interested in the dictionary definition, than please provide your dictionary so we can have a discussion in your language. Until that happens I will use the definitions from the dictionary. Thank you in advance.
- mordocai 11y ago
  To be fair, with nearly every license you have to do something. GPL just has you do extra things. Almost every license requires you to include the Copyright notice and copy of the license along with your code and usually in the running program as well. Of course, that's a ton easier than being required to release your source code and not DRM the binaries.

yarrel 11y ago

Nobody is forced to release their source code. They just can't release binaries without the source, as they would be preventing other people from doing anything they want with it. Arguing against that on the basis of freedom is hypocritical.