Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 31st Aug 2007 19:24 UTC, submitted by Anonymous
FreeBSD The latest issue of the FreeBSD newsletter contains a letter from the Vice President of the FreeBSD Foundation about the GPLv3. "On June 29th, the Free Software Foundation unveiled version 3 of the GNU General Public license. Even though the majority of software included in the FreeBSD distribution is not covered by any version of the GPL, our community cannot ignore this very popular license or its most recent incarnation. Through extremely successful evangelization, and the popularity of Linux, the misconception that OpenSource and the GPL are synonymous has become pervasive."
Thread beginning with comment 267636
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Elmer FUD
by ulib on Sat 1st Sep 2007 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Elmer FUD"
ulib
Member since:
2005-07-07

And how far did you have to dig to bury your head in the sand to ignore the Microsoft's monopoly?

Microsoft monopoly is one reason why one would expect people to try to make the market *more* free.

Instead, I see just the opposite: people bitching against free market, calling voluntary trade "enslavement", and calling the removal of choice "freedom".

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Elmer FUD
by renox on Sat 1st Sep 2007 10:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Elmer FUD"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh? Your logic is flawed: current markets are free-markets and Microsoft used this to build a monopoly.

How could 'more free market' have prevented Microsoft monopoly?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Elmer FUD
by SReilly on Sat 1st Sep 2007 14:11 in reply to "RE[4]: Elmer FUD"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Microsoft monopoly is one reason why one would expect people to try to make the market *more* free.

And that is what the GPL is trying to do. By restricting only the right to take away freedom, yet removing all other restrictions, the GPL is trying to even the playing field. Think of it as an agreement to play fair, if that helps.

Instead, I see just the opposite: people bitching against free market, calling voluntary trade "enslavement", and calling the removal of choice "freedom".

In a totally free market, anybody has the right to lock you into they're solutions, especially in the software industry. Many countries have frameworks in place to curb such practices, and for good reason. If anybody has the right walk all over you, would you stick up for that right in the name of freedom?

You say that we should be trying to make the market more free. It is exactly this freedom, the freedom to take away freedom from someone else, that the GPL is trying to deal with. If that is the only restriction, then I'm all for it.

Really, it seems to me that you have miss understood the argument. If you want to release your software BSD, that's fine by me but if you want to help in a GPL project, you have to play by the rules, just as much as someone who uses your BSD software has to respect those terms. If I don't agree with your terms, then I don't use your software, period. That's called freedom of choice.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[6]: Elmer FUD
by ulib on Sat 1st Sep 2007 16:47 in reply to "RE[5]: Elmer FUD"
ulib Member since:
2005-07-07

By restricting only the right to take away freedom, yet removing all other restrictions, the GPL is trying to even the playing field.

If I buy a piece of closed-source software because it makes my life/work easier (and sometimes it happens; there's a lot of excellent open source software around, but there are cases in which you are better off with a commercial solution), you can repeat as much as you like that they're "taking away my freedom", or "abusing" me, it's still BS.
Reality is, people who would be glad to be able to prevent the developers from selling it to me - FSF says closed-source software is "immoral" (!) - are actually trying to take away my (and their) freedom.

In a totally free market, anybody has the right to lock you into they're solutions, especially in the software industry. Many countries have frameworks in place to curb such practices, and for good reason. If anybody has the right walk all over you, would you stick up for that right in the name of freedom?

This reveals an astounding lack of knowledge about fundamental economic issues, like the very definition of "free market".
Free market has nothing to do with abuse, or with people walking over other people. As a matter of fact, free market is possible only in a framework of justice that *prevents* abuse.
If a monopolist can adopt dirty techniques to prevent the raising of competitors, it means the market isn't completely free. If a vendor is allowed to play dirty tricks to lock in its customers, it means the market isn't completely free.

I strongly suggest you and the GPL proponents have a look at an excellent book, "Free to choose" by Nobel prize Milton Friedman. That would - hopefully - make you regain some touch with reality.


[Edit: typos]

Edited 2007-09-01 17:07

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Elmer FUD
by wirespot on Sat 1st Sep 2007 18:44 in reply to "RE[4]: Elmer FUD"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Microsoft monopoly is one reason why one would expect people to try to make the market *more* free.


This isn't Oz, you know. You don't just snap your heels and "make" things "free". Freedom is not the natural state of inter-personal relationships. People are not equal. That's a fairy tale. In real life the strong dictate the rules and you need an edge to get ahead.

Now, you have a choice. You can agree that the strong one is a something like the government and let it enforce rules that give everybody a fair chance. Or you can let everybody do what they want, in which case natural selection will elect a 300 lbs guy with a shotgun.

Reply Parent Score: 2