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 501913
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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.

And what makes you think you are not in your right to distribute your program under any licence (or none at all) you wish?

In what way does the existance of GPL hinder you in that venture?

GPL will only affect you if you licence your code as GPL or use someone else's code which is licenced under GPL. What you do with your code is entirely up to you.

That Stallman finds proprietary code immoral is of no consequence, just like that Ballmer thinks GPL is a cancer has no concequence on your right to create proprietary or GPL licenced code.

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'.

Again how would you be forced to do so?

Reply Parent Score: 6