Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!gw2.att.com!nntphub.cb.att.com!not-for-mail From: dyson@inuxs.inh.att.com (John S. Dyson) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: GPL (was Re: Linux vs FreeBSD) Date: 29 Dec 1995 16:09:55 GMT Organization: AT&T Lines: 31 Message-ID: <4c13sj$ebc@nntpb.cb.att.com> References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4b67mo$19l@dyson.iquest.net> <SJA.95Dec28115305@beta.hut.fi> <4c03ao$qpu@news.aloha.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: inuxs.inh.att.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:32445 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:11738 In article <4c03ao$qpu@news.aloha.com>, Jimen Ching <jching@aloha.com> wrote: >Sakari Jalovaara (sja@beta.hut.fi) wrote: >>> But that isn't really the point. What I then react _very_ badly to (I >>> don't like flaming, but I do it on a few issues, this being one), is >>> TOTAL JERKS who have the gall to question MY (conscious) choice of >>> copyright. >>Well said! This is one of the main reasons why I won't use the GPL. >>I want to give users of my code the freedom to make this choice. > >And exactly what prevents my evil twin brother from *preventing* these >same users from doing the same thing you so value? I.e. by using a >stricter license, he can take this choice away from your users. > He isn't -- my software is still free for people to use, and he (the *evil* brother) is free to make his mods private or public. I am talking about personal freedom to allow users of my code access to my code and still have full freedom to license their code in any way that they want. I don't acknowlege the notion of "freedom of software". That ALMOST is giving a human right to software. I do believe in personal freedom and intellectual property rights. I suppose that I could encumber some software to coerce users of that software to trade-off some of their freedom or intellectual property ownership in exchange for the use of my software -- I can use the GPL for that end... You know, Microsoft has convinced many computer users to spend some of their money (freedom) to purchase Microsoft's software and/or support... The main difference between the two aforementioned deals is that Microsoft's agenda is probably to make money, and part of the agenda associated with the GPL appears to enforce a political or economic belief. I wonder which is more honorable??? John Dyson