[Ilugc] change in name
- From: prabhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Prabhu Ramachandran)
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:15:05 +0530
"SK" == Suraj Kumar <suraj@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
SK> Ppl tend to think of GPL as a restrictive license that does
SK> not let you do *everything* that you wanted to do with it(like
SK> use it in proprietary/non-free softwares). There are
Yes, thats true of all licenses. You cant do everything with it. And
much as I would have liked it to be, you cant do everything with
(x)emacs either. ;)
SK> priorities with various freedoms. Some freedoms need to give
SK> way to the others. I love quoting how RMS explained this: "My
SK> freedom to swing my arm ends at the point where your nose
I dont think that quote is originally RMS's but I dont know the
original source either (was it Jefferson?).
SK> What most of the people fail to see is the freedom that comes
SK> along with your GPL protected software. Unlike other
I pray, how it is that you have such great powers to know what other
people see or don't see? Do you think everyone out there is stupid or
can't read English? Well you do have a point. Most folks cant read
legalese anyway, maybe even the lawyers can't. Maybe thats the whole
SK> vulnerable licenses, like the BSD license for instance, the
SK> GPL makes sure that the free software that you write wont be
SK> abused by non-free software companies and that it would have
SK> the same freedoms irrespective of how it develops / is used.
What abuse? They use it and you allow it or disallow it (depending on
the license you use). When you choose to be abused its no longer
abuse. So whats the big deal? Its just a manifestation of freedom.
SK> We can also find a lot of people who write free software
SK> releasing their code under non-GPLed free licenses such as the
SK> BSD license giving various reasons:
Aha! there you have struck your proverbial fist on my proverbial nose.
SK> * Under GPL my software wont develop as fast as it would if
SK> I release it under the BSD license * There might be "good"
Which is possible, mind you.
SK> proprietary software companies who might increase the fame of
SK> my software by incorporating it in their software. If I
SK> release it under the GPL they wont be able to do so.
Its usually not fame. Its just that there is a good chance that
better software will be available.
The world is not black and white. Atleast it isn't for me.
SK> I want my software to be "famous".
Ofcourse I do. I write software so that its used well. Not so that
its languishing in some idealistic tower of some apparently pure
license. I do what I think is best for the community. In my case
MayaVi would not have been possible but for Python and VTK, which are
both licensed under a BSD style license.
Worse, if someone were to steal my code how would I know? Who is to
prevent it from happening behind my back. Afterall, you are the one
who likes to share your software, what if some company felt the same
and shared it with all their customers? I'd rather flame
you^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H, err, do something useful than have to fight
these people. ;)
RMS also makes compromises. Why do you think there is an LGPL at all?
He might not like it but its still there.
SK> various reasons. although writing free softwares is a deed
SK> worth appreciating, the GPL is a protection to make sure the
SK> software isn't abused. By all this I'm not trying to
SK> discourage the use of other free software licenses. My humble
In case you didn't notice, you just did.
SK> opinion is that the GPL is a good way of making sure that
SK> one's work remains free for sure. For some its "okay" if the
Sure. We know that.
SK> companies that compare sharing of software to that of
SK> attacking a ship develops on the software that they write. It
SK> is infact a matter of personal ethics whether one wants to use
SK> a free software or a proprietary software. Primarily this
I'd rather say its a matter of personal choice. Ethics is another
matter and beyond the scope of this (any?) discussion.
SK> thread started off to know how many people wanted to go by
SK> this ethics of sharing software and enjoying freedom. *shrug*
There are other licenses that let you share and enjoy as much if not
more freedom. Please keep that in mind.
SK> I agree that there aren't enough free softwares for all
SK> needs. But We aren't talking about the availability of enough
SK> free softwares for various needs. We are primarily talking
SK> about why ILUGC should[n't] support non-free softwares.
Because we are ILUGC and not FSF.
Finally, please consider reading this article.
Vikram mailed me this URL and I read most of it. Its a very nice
article and makes some very interesting points.
On the lighter side, try this:
fortune -m freedom
There are some very funny ones. Here are a few:
It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three
benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom
never to use either.
-- Mark Twain
At no time is freedom of speech more precious than when a man hits his
thumb with a hammer.
-- Marshall Lumsden
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once.
-- Lazarus Long
Eats first, morals after.
-- Bertolt Brecht, "The Threepenny Opera"
If people have to choose between freedom and sandwiches, they
will take sandwiches.
-- Lord Boyd-orr
If society fits you comfortably enough, you call it freedom.
-- Robert Frost
p.s. Read my post lightly. I didn't take any personal offence to your
comments. I'm simply shooting off the hip. No offence intended.
Other related posts: