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 267700
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Elmer FUD
by ulib on Sat 1st Sep 2007 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Elmer FUD"
Member since:

By restricting only the right to take away freedom, yet removing all other restrictions, the GPL is trying to even the playing field.

If I buy a piece of closed-source software because it makes my life/work easier (and sometimes it happens; there's a lot of excellent open source software around, but there are cases in which you are better off with a commercial solution), you can repeat as much as you like that they're "taking away my freedom", or "abusing" me, it's still BS.
Reality is, people who would be glad to be able to prevent the developers from selling it to me - FSF says closed-source software is "immoral" (!) - are actually trying to take away my (and their) freedom.

In a totally free market, anybody has the right to lock you into they're solutions, especially in the software industry. Many countries have frameworks in place to curb such practices, and for good reason. If anybody has the right walk all over you, would you stick up for that right in the name of freedom?

This reveals an astounding lack of knowledge about fundamental economic issues, like the very definition of "free market".
Free market has nothing to do with abuse, or with people walking over other people. As a matter of fact, free market is possible only in a framework of justice that *prevents* abuse.
If a monopolist can adopt dirty techniques to prevent the raising of competitors, it means the market isn't completely free. If a vendor is allowed to play dirty tricks to lock in its customers, it means the market isn't completely free.

I strongly suggest you and the GPL proponents have a look at an excellent book, "Free to choose" by Nobel prize Milton Friedman. That would - hopefully - make you regain some touch with reality.

[Edit: typos]

Edited 2007-09-01 17:07

Reply Parent Score: 4