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 456156
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I would sign, but ...
by lemur2 on Thu 6th Jan 2011 10:52 UTC in reply to "I would sign, but ..."
Member since:

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