vijay chopra wrote: > What about their "freedom to use the software for *any* purpose"? ( > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
I don't see that quote on that page. Please don't misquote us :) * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Tivo are restricting YOUR freedom to run the program for any purpose. You buy a Tivo, it runs free software - except that Tivo won't let you exercise your freedoms under the GPL. It won't let you run modified GPL licensed software on your own computer, which in this case is a Tivo. > At the basic level I find the GPL to be hypocritical, claiming to be > free whilst imposing restrictions of it's own. The GPL doesn't, in my mind, impose any greater restriction that 'this software is free software and if you distribute it, you must ensure it stays free software, so that anyone receiving a copy has the same rights you did.' - nobody is forced to use GPL licensed software in their DVR, but if they do, then they should not restrict others. > "I dislike it's viral nature, I don't believe that it's free to make > other people adopt your license. I also distrust the "or any later > version" clause, I find changing terms and conditions unilaterally after > they have been agreed to be unfair. You can remove the 'or later version' part. Also note it says 'at your option', so if something is GPLv2 or later versions, and you don't like the GPLv3, you can simply use it under the terms of GPLv2. As for making other people adopt your license - nobody is forcing anyone to use GPL software, but if they do, then the license is designed to ensure everyone who gets the software is entitled to the same freedoms. Are you really arguing that you should be free to oppress people if you desire? > Both of the above would be fine if the FSF and RMS stopped claiming that > the GPL is free, in an ordinary license they would be perfectly > acceptable but from self proclaimed crusaders of freedom and good I find > them hypocritical. I suppose that's my real objection to the GPL. The GPL is a free software license, just like the BSD license. The GPL differs however, in that is a copyleft license. Our work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. We want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. Proprietary software development does not contribute to our community, but its developers often want handouts from us. Copyleft refutes this. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html matt
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
