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

Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue



Glenn Maynard wrote:
(forgot to CC -user)



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:
Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
From:
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date:
Wed, 20 Apr 2005 03:50:08 -0400
To:
debian-project@lists.debian.org

To:
debian-project@lists.debian.org


On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:39:48AM -0400, Marty wrote:

Look at the word "copyright." Notice the last 5 letters. Now, who holds it, with respect to GPL'ed software? Who gets to pick that license in the first place? Who can change it? Who's entitled to enforce it in court? I see the GPL as protecting the author's right to protect his offering to the community.


Free Software, including the GPL, is fundamentally about giving up works
to the "commons", allowing anyone to reuse, adapt and distribute it.  The
GPL gives these permissions to the public, and attempts to protect users
by requiring that they are always able to obtain source.  This is
extremely basic.


But I see your point, I guess, if you define freedom as "what's in it for me." I doubt it's the FSF's philosphy, although unlike you I can't presume to speak for them.


Free Software is "what's in it for the public", and it is specifically
not "what's in it for the copyright holder"--that's what proprietary
software is about.


A free software lisence must not necessarily be written for the purpose of defending user's freedom. It must allow a level of freedom that is considered suffisient. Consider DFSG n4, it expressely allow some restriction in order to satisfy the copyright holder but it is nevertheless free. From my other post I think they are enough arguments for which we can consider FDL free.

Olive



Reply to: