OSNews

>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

>>But there are natural borders which normally everyone accepts. This border is drawn at the point where the freedom of other persons began.<<

In theory yes, in practive, try to go naked on the street and see how free you are..

About the article: there's no way I'll read a 16 page article on GPLv2 vs v3.

Never debatable? Uh.. are you being serious?

For once I agree with you: certain words, such as "freedom", represent complex concepts that cannot be reduced to absolutes. Freedom is certainly debatable, and many people have debated the concept over human history.

The case can be made that GPL, while more restrictive, protects freedom of the code by making sure derivatives are also free. Others argue that BSD gives more freedom to developers. These apparently contradictory positions are, in fact, both true.

This is why internet discussions on such loaded terms often degenerate into flamewars.

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

"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."

Much as some would agree with what you are saying...although GPL3 covers this very use through a sentence I particularly object to.

In the context of casino gaming & voting machines I would rather the code be available by *law* not some copyright license by an organization. Although to be fair I would to know of any casino of voting machine software that uses GPL at all.

Edited 2007-09-30 01:05

Anarchy aside, all freedoms are based on limits and restrictions of others freedoms.

Even an anarchist would agree with that, where an anarchist would disagree is on the role of the state and corporations on defining and limiting those restrictions and freedoms.