Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Jun 2012 23:56 UTC, submitted by Modafinil
Permalink for comment 520430
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/14/13 18:22 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-13
Really? According to the Wikipedia article on the GPL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is the most widely used free software license. It was originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU Project.
It is a software license... equally as valid (or invalid) as every other software license on the planet.
On the contrary, it has plenty to say about these matters. It basically says you can run it wherever you want and install it on as many machines as you want. Just because it is much less restrictive than most other software licenses doesn't change what it is.
For digital, yes. But physical objects don't apply, because most of them are not copyable. But when (not if) somebody creates a Star Trek-style replicator and you can clone a loaf of bread and infinite amount of times, are we then going to set up laws that says people can't copy a loaf of bread? I am simply pointing out the lunacy of trying to use the legal system to prevent people from copying something that is infinitely copyable. Mind you, I'm speaking on pragmatic terms, not trying to give some sort of moral justification for piracy.
What I am saying is that if we accept one type of software license, we must by extension accept them ALL. As long as we're allowing developers to make the rules, we can't say that some developers are allowed to dictate the terms by wich their software can be used and/or distributed and some aren't allowed to do this, just because some developers set up terms that are more restrictive than you would like. Thus I think it is logical to not allow developers to make the rules anymore, since most of their rules end up being detrimental to end-users anyway. In essence, we've set up a system where developers have 100% of the control, and it ain't right. It's like being sold a car, and then being told where you're allowed to drive it. Sure, some dealers may be less restrictive about this than others, and some might even say 'drive it wherever the hell you want.' I'd just assume not let dealers make these decisions in the first place.
Edited 2012-06-02 08:25 UTC