On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 09:00:18AM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> >> From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html:
> >
> > Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four
> > freedoms that every user should have:
> > the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
> > the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
> > the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
> > the freedom to share the changes you make.
> > When a program offers users all of these freedoms, we call it free
> > software.
> 
> Note that they specifically left out the freedom to make changes and NOT
> share the source.

Actually it's a two parter. You don't have the freedom to make changes,
distribute the result, and NOT share the source.

If you make the changes for yourself, you don't have to share them with
anyone.

>  Once again, they are trying to allocate common words to
> their agenda.  "Free software" means exactly that.  If it's truly free then
> you don't need to explicitly list the freedoms you have.  I agree that my
> USBProg source is not free, but neither is GPL source.  However, much of my
> Pascal host code has no restriction at all, and is "free source".

Olin, nothing is truly "free" because there are always rights boundaries.
It's the classic "the right to swing my fist ends at your nose" type
argument.

The GPL is quite unrelenting in protecting the freedoms of end users. To do
so the license impinges on the freedoms of developers and distributors of
software. It's a zero sum game: you give to one, you have to take from the
other.

The type of freedom that you keep referring to takes away rights from the
end user. If you have the right to make modifications, distribute the
product but not the source, then every user that you distribute to lose the
ability to make further changes and share those changes.

Zero sum game.

Xiaofan likes the BSD because it allows for precisely that. But end users
and downstream developers lose when modifications are suppressed.

> 
> > On the other hand, from FSF's point of view, the agenda is
> > more important than the above "freedom". And imposing
> > limit of the modification and redistribution does help on
> > its agenda. On this perspective, it is more suitable for FSF.
> 
> I see what they're doing and why, and agree they have every right to impose
> whatever restriction they want on software they own.  What bugs me about the
> FSF is that they are trying to appropriate common english words to their
> narrow and self-serving meaning, and they tend to claim some sort of moral
> superiority.  They've got a agenda, just like everyone else.

That they do.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist