[dwm] Freedom (was: Re: sic ipv6 patch)

From: Matthias Kirschner <mk_AT_fsfe.org>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 20:31:10 +0200

Hi Sander,

just my personal point of view:

* Sander van Dijk <a.h.vandijk_AT_gmail.com> [2008-05-19 19:48:51 +0200]:

> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Sylvain Bertrand
> <sylvain.bertrand_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Freedom which does not defend itself *will* be abused again and again,
> Define abuse? According to MIT/BSD, using the code in closed source
> products is not abuse, it's simply use. Since that does not in any way
> affect the freedom of the original MIT/BSD licensed code, it shouldn't
> be a problem. Unless, of course, you want to restrict the users of
> your code in what they can and can't do with it. If you want that,
> fine, that's your choice, but please don't try to sell it as
> "freedom", since that's simply not what it is.

Please, let's not start the one million and 3 discussion about that.

There are people (like) you who say modified BSD/MIT licenses are more
free, because users/developers have the freedom to make the software
unfree. (More a freedom of the individual.)

And there are people who say that GPL is more free, because the software
cannot be made non-free by developers again and is therefor giving more
users freedom. And that is is better to restrict some people in doing
things, so all users get the right to use, study, share and improve the
software. (More a freedom for society.)

Can we agree that there are different point of definitions of freedom,
and different point of views which license is better for freedom?

Beside that, _I_ would have problems if someone modifies DWM a bit,
install it on a device, sells this device to others, but makes the
software non-free and therefor does not respect users freedom.

The difference between MIT/modified BSD and GPL is imho minor here: If
DWM is MIT licensed that is absolutely ok with copyright law, but IMHO
an immoral act which harm society. If DWM is GPL this is not ok with
copyright law, but still possible (the GPL does not prevent it, you can
only act upon it later), and also an act against society (which counts
IMHO more than an act against copyright law).

Best wishes,
Received on Mon May 19 2008 - 20:31:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 15:41:19 UTC