On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:52:33 -0400
Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with
> it. Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but
> leave my name on it. GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to
> contribute back any changes you make or else.
>
I disagree that "contribute back or else" is a fair description of the
GPL. You aren't forced to release your modified versions, or share your
copies of the program - see [0]. I would love to hear your perspective
on why it feels like "contribute back or else" communism.
Like Sylvain I am still making up my mind on the issue, but the
relevant point I see is this: we all agree that software should be
free, but through what means do we wish that freeness to be enforced?
Legal action -- which amounts to the use of force -- is GNU's answer.
I would rather closed source software be banished by people's refusal
to use it, but this may be wishful thinking.
Meanwhile, there are modern issues today (NSA, etc.) that make free
software vital regardless of longterm ideals. The GPL, while it may not
reflect our philosophical viewpoints, may be a tool worth using to make
free software a little more ubiquitous.
Caleb
[0]
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Received on Thu Jun 26 2014 - 00:03:18 CEST