Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Sep 2005 22:40 UTC, submitted by Danijel Orsolic
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "This follow-up to the previously published article 'Ubuntu: Derivative or Fork?' takes into account most of everything that has been posted as a reaction to the first article to present a general opinion and compare them with facts derived from various resouces. You'll see that peace can be achieved between these two, and ultimately any GNU/Linux group out there."
Thread beginning with comment 37284
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: "Freedom""

Member since:

Is BSD proprietary? Is Apache proprietary? No? So why does the GPL prevent me from linking against them? The FSF defines the original BSD and the Apache license as GPL incompatible, but Free (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicens..... ).

Licenses like BSD and Apache are indeed Free Software licenses and in that sense I wouldn't see a problem if GPL would allow linking to them. However, how can you achieve that without completely removing the whole viral (share alike) requirement from the license and thus allowing mixing proprietary and Free Software.

There is a modified BSD that is compatible with GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

The modified BSD license is an example of a good way this inter-free software incompatibility can be resolved. GPL is the most popular Free Software license after all, practically a standard, so it only makes sense that, for their own interest if nothing else, they modify their own licenses to interoperate with GPL.

Besides, I don't see what should be wrong with creating GPL plugins for non-GPL applications, especially if it's all about the people.

I don't need to repeat myself. Mixing proprietary and Free Software is against the goals of the Free Software Foundation and the movement that it supports. The goal is to ensure that people can use their computers in liberty. Allowing mixing of proprietary and Free Software would be detrimental to this goal. In the end, popularity of GPL speaks for itself.

[i]Why would you want the people not to enjoy free plugins for commercial software?


I wont fall for this. People don't enjoy lock ins (some get around it by breaking copyright law and others just don't know better like "it's the way it is and should be"). So what's the point in providing free (as in freedom) software plugins for an unfree application, since the whole point behind Free Software is freedom and those users aren't really any more free by having a free plug in attached to an unfree application.

For those having a fobia against the word "freedom", try "liberty". But seriously, what's up with you guys? Why are you on a site about *alternative* browsers when there is "such a great OS" outthere called Microsoft Windows? What? You don't like the monopoly and it's consequences? But you somehow still fear "freedom".

What has this world become when people actually have aversions against something people have fought wars to have in the past.

If you think it's meaningless, maybe it's because your values are meaningless, or you don't value anything at all.

Thanks
Daniel

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 04:06 in reply to "RE[9]: "Freedom""
Member since:

Sorry.. seems I forgot a closing italic tag there :

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[10]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 04:42 in reply to "RE[9]: "Freedom""
Member since:

Why would you want the people not to enjoy free plugins for commercial software?

What a loaded question.

and you go on...

What has this world become when people actually have aversions against something people have fought wars to have in the past.

and on...

If you think it's meaningless, maybe it's because your values are meaningless, or you don't value anything at all.

So why do you want to kill babies? And hurt all those poor grieving mothers? You don't value peace or life. You only use those words to complain about the commies who you think are coming to get ya. I don't see how you can sleep at night.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[11]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 04:54 in reply to "RE[10]: "Freedom""
Member since:

Why would you want the people not to enjoy free plugins for commercial software?

What a loaded question.

and you go on...


I didn't ask that first question, it was asked by the guy I was replying to (stew). And I agree it's a loaded question. ;)

As for the rest of your comment, about killing babies and fearing communists.. I think even you realize how much sesne that (doesn't) make. I don't have anything to say to it therefore.

Thanks
Daniel

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[10]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 04:56 in reply to "RE[9]: "Freedom""
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

"The goal is to ensure that people can use their computers in liberty. Allowing mixing of proprietary and Free Software would be detrimental to this goal."

You are not trying to tell me that "not allowing certain things" == "liberty", are you? Tell me that I am misreading your post.

"So what's the point in providing free (as in freedom) software plugins for an unfree application, since the whole point behind Free Software is freedom and those users aren't really any more free by having a free plug in attached to an unfree application."

The point is creating software that enables users to do things they want to do. Computers are supposed to aid humans, and I appreciate everything that increases our possibilities of what we can do with computers. I don't see how this is would be less "freedom" than having software licensing that imposes restrictions that forbid me to create certain kinds of software.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 05:05 in reply to "RE[9]: "Freedom""
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

"What has this world become when people actually have aversions against something people have fought wars to have in the past."

I have nothing against freedom. I have something against the misuse of that word, for example in order to create a binary divide in the software world by categorizing it rigidly in "free" and "non-free".

Please try not to use this kind of rhetoric: "The GPL is about freedom. If you don't like the GPL, you hate freedom". That is just the same (I apologize for having to use this metaphor in this context) as the "if you are against the war, you are against America" arguments we hear.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 10:16 in reply to "RE[9]: "Freedom""
Member since:

Daniel,

i value freedom of thought, freedom of expression/speech, freedom of movement. I also value a lack of freedom from a moral code of behavior, freedom to intrude on anothers space,etc,etc. I understand that freedom is supposed to imply a glorious context understtod by all but I fear it has beeb that and become an emotional button.

It appears that men are indeed dieing around an empty call of "spreading FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY to all the world".

regarding free software. it is free only if the person who invented it, lets it free. I STRONGLY believe that what I produce with my mind, even if it began with the thoughts of others, is mine to do with what I wish. WHAT RIGHT does anyone else have to it?? I will die for my right to own what i produce. I have nothing against generous ones who give it away, I am generous myself. BUT I reserve the right of ownership of my mind and hands and what they produce.

regarding the ownership of natural resources; the earth, air, minerals. all private ownership of such began with theft. I will also die for my right to have my share of the universes resources be it land, air, minerals. The American Native who questioned the European confescation of land was looking from the correct moral standpoint. anything else gives right to the physically strong over the physically week and if you believe in that then you can have your fascist dicatator and i feel sorry for you.

Reply Parent Score: 0