From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jul 9 12:22: 7 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from odin.acuson.com (odin.acuson.com [157.226.230.71]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186F437B401; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:22:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from djohnson@acuson.com) Received: from acuson.com ([157.226.46.72]) by odin.acuson.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA261C; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:28:31 -0700 Message-ID: <3B4A0458.36F6AB0E@acuson.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:22:00 -0700 From: David Johnson Organization: Acuson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eivind Eklund Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010707160255.A18525@thinksec.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Eivind Eklund wrote: > > In light of this, the GPL is the *only* license that effectively protects a > > software commons. > > More appeal to emotions, and an attempt at making the GPL "holy". Even if > copyleft fit the description (and IMO it does not), the GPL is not the only > license for copyright. It is more than a simple appeal to emotions. Real "commons" in history were plots of land owned by the feudal nobility and rented out in exchange for oaths of serfdom. By stating that the GPL protects the software commons, the conclusion is that developers are akin to feudal lords and users are like serfs. I would rather give the users their own plot of land that they can do with as they wish. That is why I prefer to use the BSD license. > In my opinion, the former makes more sense, as "We take your freedom away, and > thus you are more free!" has never made sense to me. Nor to me. The GPL advocates usually use real world laws against theft and murder as a justification for restricting freedom in order to protect freedom. But laws against theft and murder are not for the purpose of protecting freedom! Their purpose is to hinder or prevent theft and murder! I know of no real world law that restricts freedom for the stated purpose of protecting freedom. Protecting freedom by limiting freedom is one of silliest ideas I have yet encountered. Perhaps the Free Software should be renamed to "Fair Software". Then the philosophy and actions of GNU/FSF would make a lot more sense. After all, the real world is replete with laws limiting freedom and restricting liberty in order to protect "fairness". David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message