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 37412
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[15]: "Freedom"
by archiesteel on Wed 28th Sep 2005 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[14]: "Freedom""
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Not as an adjective for software. Freedom can stand for freedom of thought, of speech or of movement. Software can't think, speak or move. So how can software have freedom?

Your argument doesn't hold if one considers code to be a form of speech. If speech can be free then so can software.

Look at it this way: speech, by itself, can't think, move or (in the case of written words) speak. So how could it have freedom? Following your arguments, because speech is not by itself a sentient organism, it cannot be free, and therefore "free speech" cannot exist.

Nice little rethorical cage you've made for yourself, there...

As usual with these discussions: if you don't like the GPL, don't use it.

Meanwhile, you haven't responded to my suggestion of contacting the software authors for relicensing...which GPL app were you talking about earlier that you'd like to make into a plugin for a proprietary app? I assume it was a real example, and not a made-up one...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[16]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 17:10 in reply to "RE[15]: "Freedom""
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

"Your argument doesn't hold if one considers code to be a form of speech. If speech can be free then so can software.

Look at it this way: speech, by itself, can't think, move or (in the case of written words) speak. So how could it have freedom? "


Speech doesn't have freedom. Humans have freedom of speech (unfortunately, not all of them).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[17]: "Freedom"
by archiesteel on Wed 28th Sep 2005 17:30 in reply to "RE[16]: "Freedom""
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

You're arguing semantics here. Are you saying that "free speech" doesn't exist?

If "free speech" exist, then it is conceivable that "free software" exists as well.

If humans have "freedom of speech", then humans should have "freedom of code" as well. The GPL doesn't restrict this. It can restrict the relicensing, but not what you can actually code...

Freedom is a multifaceted word. The GPL might remove from you the "freedom to relicense", but it also gives the coder freedom from the fear of someone relicensing their code under a license they don't agree with.

The thing that I don't understand is that you already agree with this, since you say you've released code under the GPL before, and that you like the LGPL (which is identical to the GPL except for linking). I don't understand why to take such a contrary position. The GPL protects a certain type of freedom, other licenses protect other types of freedom. There is no "absolute" freedom, as anyone who's ever had Philosophy 101 can tell you. Freedoms are always balanced one against the other. So saying that GPLed software is "free" software is not a contradiction in term. It all depends on which freedom you're referring to...

Reply Parent Score: 1