RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) [LWN.net]

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 24, 2005 12:26 UTC (Sat) by jstAusr (guest, #27224)
In reply to: RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) by arcticwolf
Parent article: RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

> According to RMS, two of the basic freedoms that users should enjoy
> are the right to run software and the right to change it.

Don't you think the four freedoms are intended to be applied as a set? Otherwise, why not just have two freedoms or ultimately no freedom?

The four freedoms are intended for all users aren't they? In other words, in each case, don't you need to consider if the four freedoms are intact for all the users?

Just one other thought. The destination of web services is to have the users pay for each use of every program. All programs would reside on servers. The users machine would hold only data and reports or maybe they would pay for storage space on the server. If you would want to listen to a song, play a game, write an email, or anything else, you would need to pay a service fee to a program server. A certain well known monoply has wanted that to happen for a long time.

(Log in to post comments)

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 24, 2005 16:57 UTC (Sat) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link]

The freedom does have to stop somewhere. That guy who wants to modify the DNS server on my machine by sending it patches inside a buffer overrun exploit packet should *not* get the four freedoms. If I believed the DNS server's license required me to grant the freedoms in this particular case, I'd run a different DNS server.

It's not at all clear to me how the GPL maps onto situations where pieces of code are executing in different administrative domains. On the one hand, I should have freedom to use any software I can legally get my hands on in any way that I like, within reason. On the other hand, I should also have rights to privacy and the disposition of my property (software is infinitely reproducible, but server resources are not). When part of the software is running on my machine and part is running on yours, where does my freedom end and your privacy begin?

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 26, 2005 4:30 UTC (Mon) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

The four freedoms don't address malicious mischief or criminal intent. Those activities don't begin or end with the GNU GPL.

zblaxell, I agree with most of what you have written, even if not with the exact reasoning, and that server resources are important. Security through obscurity has been a goal of the monopoly, the direction that path is going seems rather disagreeable or even unacceptable. The results of the community working in an open manner have generally been better and certainly are more honest. As to your question, I would rather if your freedom and my privacy were not in opposition, thank you very much :).

I'll bet RMS would love it if all of us wrote a perfect GNU GPLv3 so he wouldn't need to try to attain that difficult goal.