Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 5th Aug 2006 20:19 UTC, submitted by deanlinkous
GNU, GPL, Open Source Linus Torvalds had harsh comments about the committees organized by the Free Software Foundation to help it draft version 3 of the GNU Public License. However, so far as NewsForge can determine, none of those actually involved in the process agree with Torvalds' assessment that the FSF isn't listening to feedback.
Thread beginning with comment 149795
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: no
by deanlinkous on Mon 7th Aug 2006 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: no"
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

It isn't hairsplitting dude. If that is your purpose then you need to choose soemthing else because what you want to do and what the license provides are in direct conflict. The GPL isn't a omni-freedom license, no license is or else we would never need more than one since everything would be covered. Every license provides certain abilities and has certain requirements. The GPL is no different in this regard to any other license.

Does BSD removes your freedom to get changes others make back? Nope, it just doesn't provide this ability or freedom if you will. I could make examples out of every license out there - but it is simply what they dont provide not what they are taking away.

Why does it bother you so much that the word freedom is used. Would you feel better if that word was replaced with simething else like 'allows' or 'ability' or similar? RMS uses that word for a reason and yes it is about the ideology and the philosophy of code never being locked up. You would agree that not being locked up would imply free as in freedom wouldn't you.

Actually, the more I think about it. Go ahead and say it takes a ability or freedom away. I guess you could look at it like that. But then you have to look at every license like that and say they all take away freedoms or abilities. Because as stated, that is the purpose of a license is to define what you can and cannot do. That is the purpose of having more than one license. You choose the one that provides freedoms you consider important and does not provide the freedoms you do not want provided. Please subsitute the word 'ability' for 'freedoms' if you wish. ;)

You are right it does not provide the 'freedom' you speak of simply because that would be in direct contridiction of the purpose of the license as well as the other freedoms that it does provide. If it provided that ability to you it would go against everything it tries to do. The whole point of the GPL is to make sure source is always available because the person that wrote the GPL feels like that is very important and those who choose it should feel the same or else use a different license.

So if that is what you want to do. Then do it. You have a different license you can pick that lets you do exactly that. If you want to look at the GPL as taking away that ability then I guess you are right, but the same would apply to every license making them just as horrible and freedom robbing. ;)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2