Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 31st Aug 2007 19:24 UTC, submitted by Anonymous
FreeBSD The latest issue of the FreeBSD newsletter contains a letter from the Vice President of the FreeBSD Foundation about the GPLv3. "On June 29th, the Free Software Foundation unveiled version 3 of the GNU General Public license. Even though the majority of software included in the FreeBSD distribution is not covered by any version of the GPL, our community cannot ignore this very popular license or its most recent incarnation. Through extremely successful evangelization, and the popularity of Linux, the misconception that OpenSource and the GPL are synonymous has become pervasive."
Permalink for comment 267626
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Elmer FUD
by ulib on Sat 1st Sep 2007 07:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Elmer FUD"
Member since:

The invisible hand of the market will protect user freedom. Does anyone still believe this?

*raises hand*

The more free market, the more freedom. All the efforts to "protect" here and there, to "restrict" here and there, are just making things worse.
Efforts that are actually productive are the ones made in a radically different direction, that is, ensuring the market is really free - it's not me saying this, and not even Adam Smith and Milton Friedman: it's history.

Real freedom (to borrow our own Oliver's language) is a paradox. Real freedom requires real choice. However, real freedom allows distributors to eliminate real choice. Therefore, the closest we can get to real freedom is to impose just enough restrictions to protect real choice.

Strongly disagree. The closest we can get to real freedom is to *avoid imposing further restrictions*.
I can understand when a vendor imposes restrictions - WTH, it's *their* stuff, let them do whatever they want; if I don't have a use for it, I don't buy it. If they piss off their users, let them hammer their own testicles.
OTOH, I can't understand when open source software comes with restrictions.

Suppose a professional developer sees a GPL software and has a great idea about making a significant improvement, that would cost him a lot of time but that some users would be ready to pay big bucks for.
Since the software base is GPL, the developer couldn't do it without giving away the code for free - and this means that in most cases it wouldn't do it.

I see no winners here, and two losers: the developer, and the users.

And I can't see *why* they should be losers when they could be winners, if only the software base would have published with a BSD license instead of a GPL.

Reply Parent Score: 2