On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 12:16, Bryan Murdock wrote: > 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.
If America is Free, why are their speed limits? Freedom isn't a natural, organic thing. It doesn't spontaneously appear--it must be protected! My Freedom limits yours. If you are totally Free, I'm enslaved. "You're freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose." Freedom of speak doesn't protect yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Etc. Their is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from creating a platform that allows proprietary software. In fact, it enables it. Rather than poke and prod at the binary, you can save time by just reading the source to figure out what it does. You _CAN NOT_, however, steal the time and effort that went into writing that code. If you want to control it, you must duplicate the effort of its creation. Having rewritten it, you've earned the right to call it yours. Of course, you've also earned the cost of maintaining compatibility, but then you were the one that didn't want to share. It's as simple as this: I should not be forced to build your paradise simply because you want it. Nobody ever claimed the GPL was the One True(tm) license. That's why the LGPL was created. Not to mention the reason the BSD license has done so well. But the GPL is the only one that _defends_ our freedom. Microsoft's argument is double talk, and it is unfortunate that you've been taken in by it. -- Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM:StuartMJansen> Interviewer: What do you think anything[sic] is still missing from the [Linux] kernel? Andrew Morton: Groupies!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
