Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:33:41 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL issues (Was: More important Windows Refund Day coverage) Message-ID: <4.1.19990222132000.04005810@mail.lariat.org> In-Reply-To: <19990222143416.A25682@netmonger.net> References: <4.1.19990221233032.03fffba0@mail.lariat.org> <199902211924.OAA02025@y.dyson.net> <19990221180845.J93492@lemis.com> <199902211924.OAA02025@y.dyson.net> <19990222082525.A1429@ska.bsn> <4.1.19990221233032.03fffba0@mail.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:34 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Christopher Masto wrote: >As a strong FreeBSD supporter who prefers the GPL to the various other >free software licenses I've seen, I find this thread quite disturbing. Perhaps you don't understand the full intent, implications, or effects of the GPL. If you did, you might find the GPL to be quite disturbing. I certainly do. >People seem to be simultaneously upset about something that they >percieve as taking away the freedom to use whatever license they want, >while complaining about people who choose to use a different license. Most of the people who use the GPL are unaware of its history, its intent, or its effects. They mistakenly believe that the use of the GPL benefits them (it does not), and do not understand the way in which it sabotages developers who seek to make an honest living. >When I write software, I happen to want the >restrictions of the GPL. I do not want my code to ever become >non-free. If you use a Berkeley-style license, your code will not become "non-free." In fact, it is MORE free than it is under the GPL, because it can be used by anyone for any purpose. It has been published for the world to see, and that cannot be taken away. Only code that others write to work with your code may be kept private, and that is their right. >That's my right - it's my code. The reason that I write >free software in the first place is that I have seen what comes of >proprietary software, and I don't like it, Arguments that "what comes of proprietary software" is bad are generally specious and/or appeal solely to one egregious example: Microsoft. >The GPL allows me to produce free software, and yes, it does >hurt people who want to use my code in proprietary programs, but >that's too bad - I'm not interested in helping the makers of >proprietary programs. In that case, you are intentionally sabotaging the ability of all developers to make a living. As such, you are engaged in a process that's destructive, rather than constructive. >Can't we stop all this nonsensical comparison of software licenses to >various "evil" political/economic systems, and just acknowledge that >we have differences of opinion when it comes to the way software >should be licensed? It is not appropriate to "stop" discussions of such an important issue. The fact is that the GPL is anti-business, anti-consumer, and anti-competitive, and was created in an atmosphere of spite and destructiveness. It's not nonsensical; it's so. >I will never be convinced that proprietary software is good, I see: Making an honest living as a developer is OBVIOUSLY evil and wrong. So, you intend to take it upon yourself to make sure that these horrible people cannot find jobs doing the work they love. What a positive attitude! Oh, and by the way, better throw out your computer. Its ROMs contain -- evil of evils -- PROPRIETARY software! Oh, and better do the same with your hard drive, your laser printer, your modem, your microwave oven, your car.... You wouldn't want to be seen as a supporter of such an evil horror, would you? --Brett GLass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990222132000.04005810>