Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 17, 2006 08:10 PM
Protecting peoples freedom always means that there are limits to those freedoms.
Even the law protects our freedom by limiting our freedom. We do not have the freedom to assault people, to murder people, or to steal. We don't have those freedoms because of the need to protect peoples freedom to live their lives. You can disagree with the way a particular legal system balances the issues, but to opt out of law altogether is to choose anarchy.
In principle, the GPL is an attempt to do the same thing. It protects freedom by limiting freedom.
Personally, if I distribute some software, I don't want anyone to have the freedom to distribute broken closed source variants, get users dependent on them, and then charge for a never ending stream of 'fixes'. The freedom to rip people off is not a freedom that I want to protect.
You can disagree with me. You can point out that it is the end users responsibility to take care not to be ripped off, and I have some sympathy with that. But if you want the freedom to rip people off, there are plenty of options for doing so - just start a closed source software company. Just do it without using my software.
Personally, I want to protect the end users freedom to be able to repair or modify my product if needed - even if they get a modified version of my product from somewhere else. One practical consequence is that even the well-intentioned users of my software will lose some freedoms and gain some responsibilities. Well, sorry, but that's just a basic fact of life. Total freedom is a fantasy, as is freedom without responsibility.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Garbage
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 17, 2006 08:10 PMEven the law protects our freedom by limiting our freedom. We do not have the freedom to assault people, to murder people, or to steal. We don't have those freedoms because of the need to protect peoples freedom to live their lives. You can disagree with the way a particular legal system balances the issues, but to opt out of law altogether is to choose anarchy.
In principle, the GPL is an attempt to do the same thing. It protects freedom by limiting freedom.
Personally, if I distribute some software, I don't want anyone to have the freedom to distribute broken closed source variants, get users dependent on them, and then charge for a never ending stream of 'fixes'. The freedom to rip people off is not a freedom that I want to protect.
You can disagree with me. You can point out that it is the end users responsibility to take care not to be ripped off, and I have some sympathy with that. But if you want the freedom to rip people off, there are plenty of options for doing so - just start a closed source software company. Just do it without using my software.
Personally, I want to protect the end users freedom to be able to repair or modify my product if needed - even if they get a modified version of my product from somewhere else. One practical consequence is that even the well-intentioned users of my software will lose some freedoms and gain some responsibilities. Well, sorry, but that's just a basic fact of life. Total freedom is a fantasy, as is freedom without responsibility.
#