Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Apr 2007 18:29 UTC, submitted by Flatline
"In the usual announcement to the Ubuntu developer list Ubuntu founder Mark Suttleworth this morning announced the name of the next Ubuntu release plus one, due out in October 2007: Gutsy Gibbon. Gutsy will follow Feisty Fawn due for release on April 19. But, more interestingly, Shuttleworth also talked of a new ultra-free version of Ubuntu that can be expected alongside Gutsy Gibbon."
Thread beginning with comment 230388
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-07
You don't give up your rights to _your_ software. You retain the full copyright of all your original work and can sell it, or relicense it any way you wish, even under a proprietary license. It's your code, and continues to be your code even if you license it under the GPL. Of course, those rights don't extend to __other peoples__ code, doing so would take away _their_ freedom.
Defining "free" and "rights" the FSF way obviously doesn't relate to my understanding of the words. Without repeating everything I've said before (probably wouldn't be read this time either) can I reiterate that it's not about the bits? It's about being expected to declare and evangelize my "freedom" while being dictated to by someone whose beliefs and agenda I don't share.
If I GPL something that I wrote 100% of, I actually do retain rights to it in a meaningful way (as in the ability to change the license if I want to) but I've now become another aggressor forcing my "rights" on everyone else.
It does make sense to use the GPL to protect a dual licensed free version (Qt, for example.) It still feels iffy morally, though, and I've not firmly decided if I can justify doing it without at least in part accepting the system RMS is trying to create. For now I stick with BSD (to give away), closed source (to sell), and GPL to use or study privately.
Member since:
2006-10-24
and it's a great deal, if you're a user. If you're a developer, though, you get to incorporate others' work in your own, as long as you let THEM dictate what YOU can do with it -- i.e., give up all YOUR rights.
This is just plain wrong. You don't give up your rights to _your_ software. You retain the full copyright of all your original work and can sell it, or relicense it any way you wish, even under a proprietary license. It's your code, and continues to be your code even if you license it under the GPL. Of course, those rights don't extend to __other peoples__ code, doing so would take away _their_ freedom.
As a developer it seems like more than a fair deal. You get to build on top of all that software given free by the original authors, as long as you offer that same deal to those that come after you. If you're not prepared to enter into that agreement, nobody is forcing you.
However, there are many software authors that feel good about the GPL and know that it helps ensure the software they release stays free and isn't encumbered by people who don't share a desire to keep it free.
Well you are right that calling the use or sale of proprietary software "unethical" is ridiculous. But that's really beside the point. Getting hung up on the word "free" the way you did doesn't extend the conversation or do justice to the issues involved.