"A research firm serving the mobile phone industry has published an 18-page whitepaper about open source licensing. Entitled 'GPLv2 vs. GPLv3', the paper examines the meteoric rise of open source software, and the forces that shaped each license, before concluding with an extremely detailed point-by-point comparison."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-15
Member since:2005-07-15
>The term freedom is never debatable. A golden cage is 'freedom' up to the borders.
But there are natural borders which normally everyone accepts. This border is drawn at the point where the freedom of other persons began.
Nobody would really argue that people should have the power to restrict other people freedom. I say "power" because in my eyes this is the point where "freedom for myself" convert into "my power over other people".
I'm all in favor of freedom for everyone but not in favor of power for everyone.
Edited 2007-09-29 23:09
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-10-25
Anarchy aside, all freedoms are based on limits and restrictions of others freedoms.
Your freedom to own property, for example, depends on restricting other people's freedom to take that property from you.
Your freedom of speech is nothing more than a restriction on others "freedom" to suppress your speech.
And of course, you are free to choose whichever license best suits your project.
Of a more interesting subject of discussion, I remember there was an interesting point made over machine-specific code through encryption (tivoisation) used in the context of casino gaming, voter machines, etc. There may be cases in which the GPL3's freedoms are not ideal, and one would want to restrict in what ways it can be used or redistributed by choosing a more restrictive OSS license.
Edited 2007-09-30 00:02
Member since:2007-02-19
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
While the freedom aspect is debatable, it is certainly more restrictive.