Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jan 2012 19:12 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia - but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality.
Permalink for comment 501888
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

GPL protects end user rights, such as the availability of source code, unrestricted duplication (which is what got GPL banned from AppStore) etc. Those who dislike these rights (usually those who wants to use open source code in proprietary projects) wants to argue that they make things 'less free' because surely if you are not free to deny these rights to end users then you are indeed less free, right?

Who said anything about using open source code in proprietary projects? I am talking about the freedom to WRITE and USE proprietary software, not to distribute GPL code in proprietary projects. I do not believe the use of GPL and the 4 freedoms make people less free; I believe that the attempt to ENFORCE GPL-compatible licenses on developers who don't wish to use it makes people less free. If I were a developer distributing software (I only write small utils for my own use), I feel like I should have the right to distribute MY OWN program either with or without the source code, and users are either free to use it or not.

So let's leave the term 'freedom' aside, should a licence NOT be allowed to require that the source be made available together with the binary? Is there some fundamental principle which you 'Worknman' feel should disallow this, which doesn't have to do with the semantics concerning the word 'freedom'?

Honestly, I don't have a problem with licenses that require the source code to be made available together with the binary, as long as *I* am not force to adhere to such a license if I am the author of a particular program, in the name of 'freedom'. If I download somebody else's code and want to modify and distribute it, I have no problems adhering to the terms of their license. But if I write something and distribute it, don't try and tell me that I HAVE to distribute the source code, and then claim the moral high ground.

Reply Parent Score: 2