On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 10:44, Michael L Torrie wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 11:21, District Webmaster wrote: > > Real freedom means that, when you create something, you have the right > > to do with it what you please. This includes burying it in the sand or > > charging outrageous fees for it's use. > > > > RMS doesn't think that you, as a > > creator, ought to have the right to choose what to do with your > > creation. He's decided that he has the moral authority to dictate to > > you what you should do -- he does this in the name of "public good," > > but (again) he's decided that he has the authority to determine what is > > in the public good. (Personally I think he may have a bit of a "god" > > complex.) > > > No he doesn't. That's one of the more absurd statements I've ever > heard. He has never advocated stealing anything or forcing anyone to > give their things away. I think you really misunderstand Stallman's > position and the GPL itself (case in point: why is the GPL freer than > the BSD license?). For years he funded himself selling his free > software. He does advocate the voluntary freeing of software by it's > developers, though. By producing true free software through the GPL > (that remains perpetually free), developers and users alike are > protected from the theft of their IP by companies such as Microsoft. > The freedoms that Stallman talks about are different than the freedoms > you are talking about (which will always be there, GPL or no, Stallman > or no). These common misceptions play very well into Microsoft's > anti-GPL fud campaigne. The reason I bring up the GPL here is because > it is the embodiment of the freedoms and morality that Stallman > expouses. > > Anyway, he does take the moral high ground, and he may have an ego, but > not a god complex. > > Michael
Ooh, this looking like an exciting thread. Why does the GPL need to mandate freedom? If the code is totally Free, why can't I extend it, and distribute it closed source? I know it's unfortunate Microsoft pointed this out first, but rms really is trying to mandate freedom. If all software used the GPL, which is an idea rms seems to espouse, then there would be no choice to distribute binary only software. The GPL would have taken that freedom away. Now, we may need to ask if that is a freedom we really need, like we ask if, say, the right to have an abortion is a freedom we really need, but in the end the GPL does limit some freedoms that other software licenses do not limit. I think this is all the good District Webmaster is trying to point out, even if it was in a bit of an inflammatory manner. Personally I think in this competitive climate that the GPL does an awesome job of furthing the cause of Freedom and protecting itself, very clever! I don't know if it is the end-all perfect software license. Bryan ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
