Richard Stallman Was Right All Along
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jan 2012 19:12 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia - but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality.
E-mail Print r 49   · Read More · 181 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/jnh
Thread beginning with comment 501913
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

I believe that the attempt to ENFORCE GPL-compatible licenses on developers who don't wish to use it makes people less free. If I were a developer distributing software (I only write small utils for my own use), I feel like I should have the right to distribute MY OWN program either with or without the source code, and users are either free to use it or not.

And what makes you think you are not in your right to distribute your program under any licence (or none at all) you wish?

In what way does the existance of GPL hinder you in that venture?

GPL will only affect you if you licence your code as GPL or use someone else's code which is licenced under GPL. What you do with your code is entirely up to you.

That Stallman finds proprietary code immoral is of no consequence, just like that Ballmer thinks GPL is a cancer has no concequence on your right to create proprietary or GPL licenced code.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with licenses that require the source code to be made available together with the binary, as long as *I* am not force to adhere to such a license if I am the author of a particular program, in the name of 'freedom'.

Again how would you be forced to do so?

Reply Parent Score: 6

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

And what makes you think you are not in your right to distribute your program under any licence (or none at all) you wish?

In what way does the existance of GPL hinder you in that venture?


It doesn't, although I get the impression that Stallman and his open source-loving followers want to force mandatory GPL licenses upon the rest of us. If that isn't the case, then I have no issues with them. And I do not think open source should be forced on to governments, but if they are producing documents that citizens want/need to read, I DO think they should be forced to output in formats that are standardized/free to implement/free of patent litigation.

And yes, I am equally apprehensive of those who might wish to kill GPL altogether in favor of proprietary software. On my PC, I have a mix of both open and closed source software, and would be quite pissed if anybody tried to take any of it away.

Basically, what I am saying is I think the world is just fine with a mix of open source/proprietary software. I do think that many of the patents should be done away with, but like I said... that is a different problem, different topic.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


It doesn't, although I get the impression that Stallman and his open source-loving followers want to force mandatory GPL licenses upon the rest of us.

Obviously they want people to use GPL, else they wouldn't have crafted it, just like author's of other licences want to see their licences used as they reflect their needs/philosophies, but forced? I don't see where you get that.

Given how licences work (totally based upon copyright) there's no way for anyone to enforce a licence on someone else's code. It's up to the author to decide the conditions under which his/her works may be copied.

Basically, what I am saying is I think the world is just fine with a mix of open source/proprietary software.

Yes, unlike Stallman I don't see anything inherently immoral about proprietary software. I find it less practical, but not 'bad' in itself. However things I really dislike in software, like vendor lock-in, DRM mechanisms, protocol obfuscation, spyware, are all dependant on it being proprietary and in that respect I can see where this dislike of proprietary software comes from.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Read more of this thread... >