[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FreeBSD to use a packaging system close to Debian?



In article <871znk9fyb.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com>, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
>>> "Alex" == Alex Yukhimets <aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu> writes:
Alex> This is a bit off-topic, but could you please tell me how you
Alex> felt about someone asking about changing the license of your
Alex> program to something less restrictive?

> 	Actually, I think that the non GPL licences are more
> restrictive, not less, since they do tend to limit the freedom of
> software. If asked to change the licence of my code to a licence
> which is more limiting, I would refuse, too.

Well, I would formulate that a bit differently.  Alex has a point, in
itself, that GPL is more restrictive than the LGPL.  Taken by itself,
all other things being equal, having a library (say, libdpkg) under
the GPL restricts your freedom, i.e., your freedom to link that
library in with non-free software.

But all things aren't equal.  Because the point of the loss of freedom
is actually more freedom, paradoxically.  The GPL, more than the LGPL,
encourages freedom and infects software; it's intention is that *all*
software is free.  Stallman's point with the GPL was to create a
freely sharing way-of-life (at least, programming way of life).  He
had it in an understood community (MIT Labs) which eventually fell
apart.  So he decided to institute sharing in licensing.

If your metric for the freeness of a license is the question, "How
does this encourage the sharing way-of-life", then GPL is more free,
in that it creates freedom.  If your metric is, "How does it limit the
ways I can use the software", it is strictly less free.

.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>


Reply to: