On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:41:27PM -0600, Ken Ismert wrote: > Darrin Chandler wrote: > > > Offering something to someone as "free" with one hand, while taking back > > rights with the other is not free. BSD/MIT/ISC licenses retain a very > > minimal set of rights to the original author(s), and give away > > everything else. Whatever the merits of ISC v. GPL, there's really no > > debate on which is more free. > > Debate is inevitable: freedom is difficult to define. An individual's > concept of freedom depends on their priorities and ideals. There just > isn't one license that can meet everyone's requirements, or agree with > everyone's ideology.
No, I'm not talking about "what Freedom means to me." Freedom isn't difficult to define. Just look it up in a dictionary. BSD/MIT/ISC licenses are more Free than GPL. There's nothing to debate about that. It's just the way things are. > The real value in these discussions for me lies in exploring what freedoms > each license protects, and how they enhance the public good. Even stepping > on each other's toes is good in a way: it means free speech is happening. If you stop saying "free" and "freedoms" and find a more accurate word I think your meaning will come through better. > In the end, I see licenses as tools, not dogma. As such, I refuse to > be converted to either side. I can't be more even-handed than that. You are correct. They are tools, and should be used as such. After having discussions with some people I have seen them *correctly* pick GPL, since it has the effects they desire. And, I've also seen people pick a BSD license even though they are GNU/Linux users. Good, in both cases, since the license represented their views. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
