Posted by: pennystinker
on January 28, 2006 10:54 PM
Although I understand your enthusiasm for the statistical facts regarding the "success" of the GPLv2, these facts are essentially irrelevant.
I do share your happiness that RMS/FSF/GPL/GNU has been numerically "successful", but more importantly the principles of "freedom", in particular "free software" (hopefully with other works to follow) have always been relevant. Even if the prevailing "popular" beliefs are to the contrary. RMS gets bashed because he is willing to step forward to defend these principles, because he understands what is at stake, while others (ahem, OSI) are content with lesser goals that don't value the "intangible" benefits of emancipating software itself!
The freedoms spelled out in "The Free Software Definition" emancipates the SOFTWARE through the user. Just as emancipating slaves means that others LOSE the FREEDOM to ENSLAVE, so it is with the FSF and the GPL.
This, in a nutshell, is the difference between "free" and "open" software. Because of the nature of "free" software (licensed under terms that will forever guarantee our rights as long as there are legal institutions that are willing to accept the validity of such a license, which, sadly, is not a sure bet) means that the collective "we" will always receive benefit. Software that follows a GPL-style freedom model ACCUMULATES knowledge and value over time and spreads it. Where as many narrowly defined OSS licenses allow/enable knowledge hoarding. Such knowledge can simply vanish when the commercial/private venture that created it goes *poof*, and in the end all such entities do.
RMS/FSF/GPL/GNU is important for the fact that they are willing to stand up for this, even if there was only one "success". Fortunately, the situation is much better than this.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:remember these facts next time
Posted by: pennystinker on January 28, 2006 10:54 PMAlthough I understand your enthusiasm for the statistical facts regarding the "success" of the GPLv2, these facts are essentially irrelevant.
I do share your happiness that RMS/FSF/GPL/GNU has been numerically "successful", but more importantly the principles of "freedom", in particular "free software" (hopefully with other works to follow) have always been relevant. Even if the prevailing "popular" beliefs are to the contrary. RMS gets bashed because he is willing to step forward to defend these principles, because he understands what is at stake, while others (ahem, OSI) are content with lesser goals that don't value the "intangible" benefits of emancipating software itself!
The freedoms spelled out in "The Free Software Definition" emancipates the SOFTWARE through the user. Just as emancipating slaves means that others LOSE the FREEDOM to ENSLAVE, so it is with the FSF and the GPL.
This, in a nutshell, is the difference between "free" and "open" software. Because of the nature of "free" software (licensed under terms that will forever guarantee our rights as long as there are legal institutions that are willing to accept the validity of such a license, which, sadly, is not a sure bet) means that the collective "we" will always receive benefit. Software that follows a GPL-style freedom model ACCUMULATES knowledge and value over time and spreads it. Where as many narrowly defined OSS licenses allow/enable knowledge hoarding. Such knowledge can simply vanish when the commercial/private venture that created it goes *poof*, and in the end all such entities do.
RMS/FSF/GPL/GNU is important for the fact that they are willing to stand up for this, even if there was only one "success". Fortunately, the situation is much better than this.
#