« Boy Scouts of America to fix self-serving open source | Main | Jonathan is holding his chopsticks pretty well »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeff Read

Freedom damn well belongs to the users. It's distributors who are limited by the GPL: they lose the freedom to decide whether or not to grant the freedoms they were granted when they received the software. Such freedoms must be granted with GPL-licensed software (but of course not all free software).

Hassan Ibraheem

So basically his message is : "Free Software is bad, it doesn't allow you to control and restrict the users",
didn't he learn that this is the point :D .

Wes Felter

I did think that "free software" meant "software that provides freedom for people" for many years. After all, look at the free software definition:

The freedom (for users) to run the program, for any purpose
The freedom (for people) to study how the program works...
etc.

Eventually I realized that the GPL is about freedom for software and the BSD license is about freedom for programmers. So I'm not surprised that it took a lawyer some time to realize this.

mtg

@Wes

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

One of the issues is that Freedom is a moot point if you don't have a space onto which to exert it.

Somewhat the GNU GPL and it's killer app Linux managed to offer such space, allowing FOSS to grow.

I'm a big fan of BSD but I really think that BSD would have been able to generate the FOSS movement the way the association between Linux and the GNU GPL did it.

The GPL is the reason why an eco-system of companies are now contributing to GPLed and other FOSS codes.

I don't think BSD could have done it, regardless of its technical merits.

mtg

The comments to this entry are closed.