[Novalug] [Ma-linux] [FOSE] Starting the discussion

[greg pryzby]

James Ewing Cottrell 3rd wrote:
> You seem to Miss The Point. Ethics and Logic Give No Quarter. And 
> Action is either Right/Logical or Wrong/Illogical.

You opinion and it is shared by many. However, I stand by, Free means 
free to do what I want. BSD is free and GPL is not. It restricts what 
can be done.

We can discuss what 'is better' for community, software, world, 
whatever. However the word free to me means that there is no 
restrictions. GPL places restrictions.

I am not judging if the restrictions are right or wrong, good or bad, 
they just are.

> If you believe that Software Hoarding is Wrong, then allowing others 
> to take your code and distribute it as a Closed Product is Wrong.
>
> An analogy might help here. Using my argument above, the GPL is 
> somewhat like a gun manufacturer requiring that the purchaser (SAY 
> that they will...) not use the gun for illegal purposes, while the BSD 
> license is like what we have now.
>
> Finally, the REAL moment of Freedom is choosing whether to release 
> something under GPL or not.
>
> Actually, it doesn't bother me that the GPL "restricts freedom" -- it 
> prohibits people from doing things which *I* consider uncool.
>
> That is the Price of using the software. Given that people are trying 
> to restrict ownership (I bought it, I can do what I want) anyway with 
> Licensing (no you can't, you can run it only on CPU Serial 364521. On 
> Tuesday. Or if it's Dark.), it seems like a small price to pay.
>
> JIM
>
> greg pryzby wrote:
>> GPL is ONE license and there is an argument that some serious 
>> developers I respect say isn't truly free because it requires certain 
>> things.  BSD is a free license because once the code has left your 
>> hands, anyone can take it and do what they want. That is true 
>> freedom. It is the freedom to let someone do what they want with it 
>> and not force them to leave it open. They can take it and not make 
>> the code available and sell it also, without a change (iirc).
>>
>> I DO NOT tell people what to do or what is right, as Varol said, that 
>> is the decision of the developer(s).
>>
>> I remember a heated exchange when the developer told people to take 
>> his code, only release binaries and sell it-- that is fine by him. He 
>> wrote the code for himself and shared it because he wanted to. He 
>> could care less if others liked/used it.
>>
>> Personally, that is giving true freedom.
>>
>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Varol Okan 
>>> <varokan at movingsatellites.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Serge, remember when people used to have train sets to play with. 
>>>> No one
>>>> really did it to instill freedom in other people, but the motive 
>>>> most of
>>>> the time centered around hobby, fun and relaxation.
>>>>
>>>> As the author of an GPLed SW I did it not mainly to give people free
>>>> speech source code, I did it to follow my interests and talents.
>>>>
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I am all for FLOSS, however as a user of FLOSS 
>>>> SW I
>>>> am interested mostly in usability. So yes, I do uses closed source
>>>> codecs/driver if I have to.
>>>>
>>>> So when you say every one in the FLOSS community did it ONLY to 
>>>> support
>>>> freedom, I think you can count me out. I did it mainly to solve a
>>>> personal need, follow my hobby and enjoy, relax while doing some
>>>> productive things for every one to use.
>>>>     
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> If you really do not care about other people's freedom at all, why use
>>> the GPL?  Why not use some mild shareware license? Then you get to
>>> scratch your itch *and* you might get paid a little beer money too?
>>>
>>> Maybe your answer was so that you could integrate some pre-existing
>>> GPLed software and you needed a compatible license. But if thats the
>>> case then you could trace the chain back and find someone who cares
>>> about freedom at the other end.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps you wanted to maximize the chances that someone else will
>>> chip in?  But there you're taking a bet that they'll care about
>>> freedom even if you do not.    ... Or perhaps you wanted to be
>>> included in a GNU/Linux distribution that only(/mostly) ships Free
>>> Software.
>>>
>>> I think that pretty much any way you cut it,  you pretty much can't
>>> make a rational explanation for the existence of GPLed software
>>> without explaining that some people are trying to promote a particular
>>> kind of freedom for computer users. We don't need to claim that all
>>> GPL users have this purpose, but some very clearly do… and unless it's
>>> mentioned the whole system seems a little less sensible and a little
>>> more suspicious.
>>>
>>> Some people call this promotion 'political', but I think thats just
>>> really a label we slap on pragmatic efforts to achieve practical goals
>>> which we don't share ourselves.  :)
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>  
>>>> Now that said I am grateful FLOSS and people defending it. I am just
>>>> opposed to the radical view of black vs white, good vs evil, FLOSS vs
>>>> closed SW.
>>>>     
>>> Most people that I've met who promote free software are also not fond
>>> of BLACK/WHITE style distinctions.
>>>
>>> For example, virtually all of us are using CPUs whos designs are
>>> secret, proprietary, patented, etc but the CPU, coded in a high level
>>> design language, is no less software by virtue of being etched into
>>> silicon, by at least one rational school of thought.  Basically it's
>>> impossible for someone with an absolute black/white position to avoid
>>> contradiction and hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> When people draw shades of grey in very different positions from
>>> ourselves we sometimes mistake that with a rigid black and white
>>> phenomena (the same as the "they all look alike" view on people of
>>> other races from people not accustomed to dealing with them).  But if
>>> we listen carefully with tolerance and and open mind, we can usually
>>> find the nuance in the position of those we do not agree with.