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 37918
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[19]: "Freedom"
by on Thu 29th Sep 2005 15:07 UTC

Member since:

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.

It is not implying, I am actually saying that it is so!

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.

You are right and noone is disputing that you have a choice and wont be forced not to produce proprietary software, that is license it as such, but we wont consider that to be a right choice because yes, it is oppressive, it is a monopoly and it is way of ethical balance between a creator and user which many times is also a creator. Culture is built on past, but when past is thrown under restrictive licensing, it is no longer available for the culture to be built further, thus being detrimental to it. Software is an important part of our culture.

As for putting "five" (actually four) things he wanted and calling it freedom. What RMS and FSF did was something else, they simply defined freedom and came up with four points that should be satisfied for one to have an optimal computing freedom. You can do the same with freedom of speech. Just answer the question what does freedom of speech means, what does it implies, what abilities, and you'll get your set of "rules".

But if you just can't (or more like wont) understand, than there is no use trying to help you.

Bye
Danijel Orsolic

Reply Score: 0

RE[20]: "Freedom"
by stew on Thu 29th Sep 2005 16:39 in reply to "RE[19]: "Freedom""
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

"You are right and noone is disputing that you have a choice and wont be forced not to produce proprietary software, that is license it as such, but we wont consider that to be a right choice because yes, it is oppressive, it is a monopoly and it is way of ethical balance between a creator and user which many times is also a creator."

Wow. So when I create software and attach a license that says "users are not allowed to use this program to build nuclear weapons or torture devices" (which restricts usage and thus makes it GPL-incompatible and "non-Free"), I am a oppressive monopolist and unethical? You are questioning my freedom to apply my moral values to my creations.

Reply Parent Score: 1