Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Jul 2007 20:58 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "Copyright developed in the age of the printing press, and was designed to fit with the system of centralized copying imposed by the printing press. But the copyright system does not fit well with computer networks, and only draconian punishments can enforce it. The global corporations that profit from copyright are lobbying for draconian punishments, and to increase their copyright powers, while suppressing public access to technology. But if we seriously hope to serve the only legitimate purpose of copyright - to promote progress, for the benefit of the public - then we must make changes in the other direction. This talk by Richard M. Stallman is broken into two parts: the main talk and the question and answer sessions following the talk. Both are available in only OGG/Theora format in keeping with Stallman's wishes."
Thread beginning with comment 257099
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Anyone for 100% freedom?
by b3timmons on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: o_o;"
Member since:

As for Stallman not really wanting freedom, with restrictive conditions like the GPL, just think of it as a practical view of freedom.

Tell me one person who really wants freedom then, the implication being that they favor no restrictions whatsoever. Only total anarchists would qualify.

The GPL basically says if we are going to have these freedoms we have to protect them from exploitation. (Cynical, eh?) I do agree that the GPL in inherently non-free because of that.

Of course, furthering your view to its logical extreme, any software license is inherently "non-free" compared to the public domain. So all software licenses are inherently "non-free". Since licenses grant freedoms for a copyrighted work, the GPL justifiably discusses freedoms.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Anyone for 100% freedom?
by msundman on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 00:15 in reply to "Anyone for 100% freedom?"
msundman Member since:

> Only total anarchists would qualify.

Anarchy isn't very free either, since then you aren't free to go about without being harassed by muggers and rapists and whatnot.

As long as there exists freedoms which require restrictions (and almost all do) there simply can't logically be any "total freedom".

So, the important thing becomes which freedoms are more important than the restrictions they require. For me, personally, GPL seems just fine, thank you very much.

Reply Parent Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:

It depends on which kind of anarchism you are talking about. Your definition doesn't fit Collective Anarchism nor does it fit Individualistic Anarchism.

You are probably confusing Anarchism with chaos. Quite common for people who don't understand the ideology of either version of Anarchism.

Just being off-topic ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3