On 5/20/08, Kurt H Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Freedom is an absence of restrictions. The GPL implements
no, freedom is a very broad concept there are different possible interpretations (eg. freedom of society and freedom of individual are quite different as mentioned earlier) a plausible definition of "freedom of a license" may care about the long term and global consequences (not just direct restriction count). (eg. allowing to kill is more free by your definition (less restrictions), but if we care about consequences then it's less free (it may pose much more restrictions on the possibilities of an individual)) > restrictions; therefore, it lessens freedom. Your disagreement with > the societal consequences of that restriction does not affect the fact > that the GPL uses the force of copyright law to tell people what may > not be done with the code. every license uses the force of copyright law (even empty license or public domain (their scope differs in countries though)) societal consequences can be part of the definition of freedom > a closed-source binary if I so choose. With the GPL, I cannot. That > is a restriction, and it inhibits freedom. I don't see how this can > be confusing or even debatable. For more information on the fallacy > upon which your argument is based, read more about the "fallacy of > consequence." [1] as you can see, there is no general agreement on the exact meaning of the term most likely everyone would agree that public domain provides more freedom than GPL, but whether GPL is free or not is just a terminological question a more interesting question would be what is a desirable goal to achieve with licensing
