Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 17, 2006 04:55 AM
If someone writes a peice of code, including a library, they have the right to choose a license that says that no-one can link to their code with non-GPL code.
Of course, they have the right to choose the license of choice. However, claiming moral superiority while acting self-interested is misleading and false.
You don't like the consequences of a truly moral decision? Don't make it. Be honest. If GNU is just a system for the personal benefit of your group of people, say so. Don't confuse everybody else by claiming to protect or create essential freedoms.
There's an easy check: Imaging a world without freedom of speech, and you'll know it's an essential value. Imaging a world without free software, and you'll miss nothing important at all; nothing that cannot be gained by using mere open source software.
This is also what makes your analogy about conflicting freedoms misleading: Your so-called 'free' software is not essential, and it's thus always inferior to any essential freedom. For example, if a clause in the GPL would require me to never write anything bad about the GPL "to protect the freedom of people", it would probably still be OK from a contract point of view. However, everybody would clearly see that you can't claim moral superiority for your choice of a license because it would clearly restrict the freedom of speech.
To be even more precise: Don't expect respect for making wrong and misleading statements! Right now choosing the GPL is just as moral as choosing a proprietary lisence.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re: Sorry, but that's not true.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 17, 2006 04:55 AMOf course, they have the right to choose the license of choice. However, claiming moral superiority while acting self-interested is misleading and false.
You don't like the consequences of a truly moral decision? Don't make it. Be honest. If GNU is just a system for the personal benefit of your group of people, say so. Don't confuse everybody else by claiming to protect or create essential freedoms.
There's an easy check: Imaging a world without freedom of speech, and you'll know it's an essential value. Imaging a world without free software, and you'll miss nothing important at all; nothing that cannot be gained by using mere open source software.
This is also what makes your analogy about conflicting freedoms misleading: Your so-called 'free' software is not essential, and it's thus always inferior to any essential freedom. For example, if a clause in the GPL would require me to never write anything bad about the GPL "to protect the freedom of people", it would probably still be OK from a contract point of view. However, everybody would clearly see that you can't claim moral superiority for your choice of a license because it would clearly restrict the freedom of speech.
To be even more precise: Don't expect respect for making wrong and misleading statements! Right now choosing the GPL is just as moral as choosing a proprietary lisence.
#