On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:52:33 -0400 Calvin Morrison <mutanttur...@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
