On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Szabolcs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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)
All valid definitions of freedom involve an absence of restrictions, whether it's an absence of restrictions on individuals or an absence of restrictions on society as a whole. > a plausible definition of "freedom of a license" may care about the > long term and global consequences (not just direct restriction count). No, that's the definition of an "implication of a license." Freedom is a measure of the absence of restrictions, regardless of whatever semantic gymnastics you were taught in university. > (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)) This is a specious analogy. When you kill someone you permanently remove them from the population. Compiling a binary and releasing it without providing source does not remove the source code from the public grasp. > societal consequences can be part of the definition of freedom Repetition doesn't make it true. > as you can see, there is no general agreement on the exact meaning of the term There is in fact near-universal agreement on the exact meaning of the term. You, and certain members and employees of the FSF, have deviated from that meaning. This doesn't make the original meaning less valid; nor does it make your revised edition more valid. You're simply using the word incorrectly. > 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 It's not "just" a question of semantics. The word "freedom" has connotations that are far and away more emotionally charged than any denotative definition of the word. When you, and the FSF, start using it to describe a copyright license that imposes restrictions on people, it's a clear case of obfuscating reality for political purposes, and it's disingenuous. It's also not a very good way to get people on your side. > a more interesting question would be what is a desirable goal to > achieve with licensing Personally, I'd like to see copyright law abolished entirely. The entire concept of licensing is distasteful to me, but that's the world we live in. -- # Kurt H Maier
