On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: > On 25 June 2014 12:49, Calvin Morrison <mutanttur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Could you describe to us what *exactly* did happen to you? > > > > see [0] > > > > [0] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-took-an-arrow-in-the-knee > > But more seriously, GNU freedom is the same kind of 'freedom' that is > promised by communists. > > It's actually not very free.
This is just your very personal opinion, but you generalize it. > If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they > will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater > good' The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion? > Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with > it. Again that's your very personal opinion. Please don't try do define what 'free' should mean for other people. > Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but > leave my name on it. That's not the definition of 'free', but of the BSD software license. > GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any > changes you make or else. Obviously you don't like that thought very much. I'd like to state that nobody is forced or coerced into using or further developing GPL licensed software. I personally think that the terms of the GPL have lead to some very beautiful things. The Linux kernel wouldn't be where it is today if people would not be forced to contribute their patches. And please do not let us discuess the BSD vs. the Linux kernel now… The term 'freedom' in relation to the GPL is best understood when it is applied to the codebase, not the user (primarily). The GPL inforces that the codebase stays free. Kind regards, -Alex
