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.
I like to think of it not so much as mandating freedom as preserving freedom. One of the things you have to understand about Stallman is that he likes to own the things he makes. Many people have been offended by him because he'll share his source-code with you, but if you change it and try to run away with it (fork) he'll get really upset. If he doesn't like the change you made he'll reject it and send you away sulking. If he likes the change he'll probably rewrite it before integrating it. The point I'm trying to make is that Stallman owns emacs and many other GNU tools and you can't take it away from him (well, of course you can, but you really shouldn't). He's a big fan of ownership, (including you're ownership of what's yours) and he'll defend that anyway he can.
The point of the GPL is to keep the code under the control of the author. If the author wants it to only be Free (never closed) then the GPL protects the author's right.
The GPL does not protect your right to close emacs because you don't own emacs. That right doesn't belong to you, but to RMS.
That's why I feel that the BSD-style licenses are more open, more free. They say "feel free to claim ownership of this and do with it whatever you want, just don't forget who gave it to you." Which is a lot more Free than what the GPL offers.
Each has it's place of course, and really I don't know how I'd feel if MS took something I'd written, closed their changes, and only gave me a brief mention in some hidden credits file. I might be miffed. So maybe I'd prefer the GPL myself.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
