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 37549
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[16]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[15]: "Freedom""
Member since:

"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:

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

RE[18]: "Freedom"
by stew on Thu 29th Sep 2005 00:57 in reply to "RE[17]: "Freedom""
stew Member since:

"There is no "absolute" freedom, as anyone who's ever had Philosophy 101 can tell you. Freedoms are always balanced one against the other."

Exactly that is my point. The use of the words "Free" and "non-Free" for software is idiotic to begin with. Someone just came, made a list of five things he wants to have in software and stamped the word "freedom" on it. Afterwards, he accuses everyone who has different interests of being against "freedom".

Besides, freedom of speech and "freedom of code" are worlds apart. Freedom of speech is a basic human right no one should be denied and strict censorship is an act of oppression. Applying the same words to software is implying a parallel, that there is oppressive software licensing and a human right to modify and redisitriute other people's work. This is the thing I disagree with, because I consider producing and selling proprietary software a basic right everyone should be granted in a free society and there is nothing oppressive about it.

Reply Parent Score: 1