Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Jan 2007 20:47 UTC, submitted by ciaran
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The following is a transcript of a lecture given by Richard Stallman in Zagreb (Croatia/Hrvatska) on March 9th 2006. The lecture was given in English. Richard Stallman launched the GNU project in 1983, and with it the Free Software movement. Stallman is the president of FSF - a sister organisation of FSFE. Transcription of this presentation was undertaken by Ciarán O'Riordan."
Thread beginning with comment 200528
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: doh!
by tomcat on Wed 10th Jan 2007 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: doh!"
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Eh? I'm confused.

Read the original comment that I was replying to. Stallman has no problem with anyone violating a commercial license, but he's more than ready to sue you if you violate the GPL. His hypocrisy is rank.

What on earth are you on about, seriously I've read it about 10 times. I'm absolutely certain that if you write code you can do whatever you want with it.

Licence it however you want; re-license it; let it sit on your hard drive; put it in a skip.

Unless your talking about making a change to *someone else's code*


Why should it matter what I want to do with it? If I want to make a change to it, but keep the changes to myself and commercialize it, that doesn't alter your "freedom" to use the original source code at all. Stallman's ideology is ultimately based on the cynical premise that commercial applications of software will inevitably eclipse those contributed by the open source community -- which I completely disagree with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: doh!
by hal2k1 on Thu 11th Jan 2007 01:20 in reply to "RE[3]: doh!"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Why should it matter what I want to do with it? If I want to make a change to it, but keep the changes to myself and commercialize it//

If you want to do that, you are using someone else's efforts to create a product for yourself to profit from at the expense of yet other people.

That is pure greed. You are asking for money for jam. You are asking for other people to hand you a living.

That is why doing what you suggest is morally wrong, and hence that is why it matters.

People don't want to be ripped off. It is a high priority that authors of free software don't want you to be able to "keep the changes to yourself and commercialize it". That is the precise thing that you may not do ... sponge off the efforts of others, and then charge innocent end customers to support your stealing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: doh!
by Bounty on Thu 11th Jan 2007 18:00 in reply to "RE[4]: doh!"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

hal2k1: "If you want to do that, you are using someone else's efforts to create a product for yourself to profit from at the expense of yet other people.

That is pure greed. You are asking for money for jam. You are asking for other people to hand you a living.

That is why doing what you suggest is morally wrong, and hence that is why it matters. ?"

Who's expense... it's given away? Just like our thoughts on this subject, in this forum. You quoted someone, included it in your post.... did doing that cost tomcat anything somehow? Are you immoral for using his ideas to help define your point? Don't call it FREE if it's not free.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: doh!
by Valhalla on Thu 11th Jan 2007 02:01 in reply to "RE[3]: doh!"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

tomcat wrote:
-"Why should it matter what I want to do with it? If I want to make a change to it, but keep the changes to myself and commercialize it, that doesn't alter your "freedom" to use the original source code at all."

it obviously matters to all those developers who choose to licence their code under GPL. and no, I don't think it's so much a ideological choice for most developers as a pragmatic one. if they release their code under GPL, they will be sure to benefit if someone improves/continues on their code and distributes it. hence in that context they will become end-users and recieve the same rights they granted the recipients of their code.

and no, I'm not saying that GPL is the 'best' licence. different licences suits different developers, and I do not argue against people wanting to keep their code propriety or licence it under BSD, MIT, public domain or whatever. just as I can't understand why some people would argue against a developers right to licence his code under GPL.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: doh!
by Bounty on Thu 11th Jan 2007 18:13 in reply to "RE[4]: doh!"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"if they release their code under GPL, they will be sure to benefit if someone improves/continues on their code and distributes it."

So it's not Free, the developers profit from it (not money, but they get someone's development free) And as noted earlier, there are many GPL developers who make a profit somehow from the industry... so I guess they do get $. Interesting....

I agree there should be different licenses, and I like the variety etc. I just also think people shouldn't call GPL software Free as in speech or beer. It's more like Free as in broadcast TV. I DL opensuse and it's basically a big ad for Novell, especially when I want to stop 'playing' with it and use it for real in my enterprise.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: doh!
by rajj on Thu 11th Jan 2007 05:30 in reply to "RE[3]: doh!"
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

When has Stallman ever advocated violating a so-called "commercial license"?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: doh!
by Bounty on Thu 11th Jan 2007 18:32 in reply to "RE[4]: doh!"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"When has Stallman ever advocated violating a so-called "commercial license"? -rajj"

Near the beginning of the article we're discussing.

"[Section: Freedom two]

Freedom two is essential on fundamental ethical grounds, so that you can live an upright, ethical life as a member of your community. If you use a program that does not give you freedom number two, you're in danger of falling at any moment into a moral dilema. When your friend says "that's a nice program, could I have a copy?" At that moment, you will have to choose between two evils. One evil is: give your friend a copy and violate the licence of the program. The other evil is: deny your friend a copy and comply with the licence of the program.

Once you are in that situation, you should choose the lesser evil. The lesser evil is to give your friend a copy and violate the licence of the program. -Stallman" followed by [laughter]

I would say maybe he was joking because of the laughter... but then he goes on to explain "It may be the right thing to do, but it's not entirely good."

Reply Parent Score: 2