Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Jan 2011 11:53 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Internet & Networking "In the physical world, we have the right to print and sell books. Anyone trying to stop us would need to go to court. That right is weak in the UK (consider superinjunctions), but at least it exists. However, to set up a web site we need the cooperation of a domain name company, an ISP, and often a hosting company, any of which can be pressured to cut us off. In the US, no law explicitly requires this precarity. Rather, it is embodied in contracts that we have allowed those companies to establish as normal. It is as if we all lived in rented rooms and landlords could evict anyone at a moment's notice." Recommended reading. I'm no fan of Stallman, but despite a bit too much dramatisation towards the end, this article aptly illustrates in layman's terms why the 'net needs to be free, open, and unregulated.
Thread beginning with comment 455728
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I would sign, but ...
by vtolkov on Mon 3rd Jan 2011 23:49 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

I would sign on some words but do not attach GNU license here. Yes, we need to fight for our rights in Internet to match their equivalent in the real word. But I can not sign on the statement, that Stallman's initiative with software is a kind of freedom. GNU license is restrictive, it limits creator in what he can do with his creation, like all other proprietary licenses do. So, this article becomes a kind of commercial: "fight freedom, buy from us".

Edited 2011-01-03 23:52 UTC

Reply Score: -1

RE: I would sign, but ...
by vodoomoth on Tue 4th Jan 2011 11:53 in reply to "I would sign, but ..."
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


GNU license is restrictive, it limits creator in what he can do with his creation, like all other proprietary licenses do.

I have to second this: the GPL is obviously less free than a BSD for instance. The GPL **warrants** that I also publish as GPL in case I use anything GPL-licensed. I see this as a limitation of my freedom to publish my work as CC or Apache or BSD or whatever else license I want and this is why I don't use any GPL code.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I would sign, but ...
by flypig on Tue 4th Jan 2011 19:38 in reply to "RE: I would sign, but ..."
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

I have to second this: the GPL is obviously less free than a BSD for instance. The GPL **warrants** that I also publish as GPL in case I use anything GPL-licensed. I see this as a limitation of my freedom to publish my work as CC or Apache or BSD or whatever else license I want and this is why I don't use any GPL code.

I guess it depends on which you think is more important: the freedom of an individual to make use of your code as he or she chooses, or the freedom for society in general to access the source code of the software it uses.

Personally I'm not sure either are a right, but they both strike me as types of freedom (both of which are worth promoting).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: I would sign, but ...
by lemur2 on Thu 6th Jan 2011 10:52 in reply to "I would sign, but ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

GNU license is restrictive, it limits creator in what he can do with his creation, like all other proprietary licenses do.


There are three ways in which this statement is incorrect:

Firstly, the GNU license (aka the GPL) is chosen by the creator to apply to a piece of his/her software. If the creator does not want the GPL license to apply, then it does not.

Secondly, the creator of a piece of software can choose to license it any way he/she wants to, including the possibility of dual-licensing the one piece of software as both proprietary and GPL, with different restrictions under each license.

Finally, license restrictions are restrictions that the creator of a piece of software imposes on the recipients of said software. These restrictions do not apply to the creator.

Reply Parent Score: 2