On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 22:05 +0200, Esben Stien wrote: > "trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com"; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Limits increase this freedom? I dont understand how placing limits > > on its use increases its freedom, could you please explain that to > > me? > > The "limits" are put on people to ensure that the software stays free; > that's a big part of the idea here. Free software is much a matter of > definition and when most of us talk about free software, we talk about > it in the way it's defined by the free software foundation. The gpl's > purpose is to protect the freedoms that comes with free software. >
Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting freedoms). Interesting concept. > Putting a program in the public domain, uncopyrighted allows people to > share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But > it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into > proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and > distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the > program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the > original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away. > copyright and license to use are different. The GPL is a license for use, not a copyright. You can technically put software out there with no copyright but under the gpl license (although that would make it more or less meaningless). And if the software you put out is sent out how you want it limiting people on what they can do with it does nothing to ensure that *your* code is 'free' it only restricts *their* code (ie modifications). Your code can remain as free as you choose to make it, the GPL does allow for that at the cost of restricting freedoms on others and what they can do with their code, albeit based off yours. The BSD license for example lets your code remain free while giving people the freedom to create code of their own, as a modification of yours, and use their code how they want. If people want your version they can always get that from you, and so it is intact as 'free'. > The aim of the copyleft, the gpl, is to give all users the freedom to > redistribute and change software. If middlemen could strip off the > freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have > freedom. So instead of putting this software in the public domain, it > get's ``copylefted'. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the > software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to > further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has > the freedoms defined in the free software definition. > It does not give full unrestricted modification clauses. And proposed GPL 3.0 makes it worse to the point that if you modify code for internal commercial use (ie you dont distribute anything, much like google and ebay do not redistribute their software) you have to pay money (most likely to the FSF, wonder if donations are slipping). The freedom of users of modified code may be curtailed, but *only* the modifications would be restricted. Your version which you released 'free' would still be there. In its unmodified glory. The GPL does not ensure freedom to all, only that it works like a parasite and infects future code written that enhances existing code bases. It does not protect the original author in this way becuase the original authors code would still be freely available. All it does is force others who write code to be assimilated into the same doctrine. I guess what I am trying to say is that GPL does little to protect the original author, instead it removes freedoms from subsequent authors by forcing them to license in the same way. > Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' > freedom; the gpl is to guarantee their freedom. > But it doesnt guarantee the freedom of subsequent authors, it curtails that freedom. And you can copyright (and infact do) without the GPL., The GPL is *not* a copyright it is a license for use. They are very different things. You can copyright something and distro it without GPLing it. > So, clearly there is a need for the gpl, in my opinion. With these > limits, the free software stays free. > The free software continues to be as free as the author wants. The GPL does little to enhance that freedom, it does however curtail the freedoms of any subsequent authors that enhance the code. Your original code will be free becuase you choose to make it free, subsequent authors now have *no* choice in how they license it, they are forced to license it the same way as you, which curtails freedom. The modifications are the *only* difference between what you release and what they release, so if they use your code as a base and make changes to suit a particular need, their code, which they did write all of, cannot be licensed how they choose, instead it must be licensed how you choose. And the parasitic nature of the GPL means that their modifications, *their* code, must also be GPLed rather than giving an original copy of what you wrote, as you wrote it, and not giving out their code. The GPL doesnt protect freedom, it curtails freedom of future developers. > ``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program > must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and > commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no > longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. > > One can use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. > Commercial development? Hardly, it curtails much of that by forcing any proprietary changes to be made public, and thus reduction in IP rights for any company that uses it. Again, while this goes against the FSF's mantra it *does* curtail rights of future developers in forcing them to use a speciifc license for *their* code (ie modifications). The original authors code would be as free as they choose to make it. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
