| |||||||||||||
Argh.Argh.Posted Jul 27, 2009 7:36 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (guest, #15263)In reply to: Argh. by khim Parent article: Launchpad source released
Nice to see that you are able to choose the one (of the several) definitions that agrees with you.
The AGPL and GPL is exactly the same in this regard, no matter which funny ways you decide to read the four freedoms.
(Log in to post comments)
Care to point any other definition? Posted Jul 27, 2009 16:35 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Nice to see that you are able to choose the one (of the several) definitions that agrees with you. Actually they all are pretty similar. "Absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint", "liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another", and other similar definitions all point to the central point: you must have choice - or else it's not a freedom at all. I highly doubt FSF uses word "freedom" as synonym to "improper familiarity"... The AGPL and GPL is exactly the same in this regard, no matter which funny ways you decide to read the four freedoms. How come? Where is fault in my logic? I can show step-by-step that GPL is free software license while AGPL is not free software license. Here is how (just two steps): Note: even the latest edition of RMS's definition explicitly says certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms thus reinforcing my idea that freedom 3 is the least important freedom, important freedom, but it's freedom none-the-less, not duty or obligation. And I fail to see how onerous AGPL requirements help with freedoms 0, 1, and 2. It flat out robs me of freedom 0 - and this the most important freedom (that's why when it was added it was added as freedom 0, not freedom 4). I'm sure RMS will change definition soon to make it compatible with AGPL (or it'll just imply that onerous AGPL requirements don't in practice affect freedom 0 at all when they clearly do have impact - and pretty sizable one), but not all people will accept the new definition. Note that DFSG does not have such a requirement (if you can only distribute the program but have no right to run it at all - it's DFSG-compatible), so AGPL is acceptable in Debian.
Care to point any other definition? Posted Jul 27, 2009 18:14 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] How come? Where is fault in my logic? [etc]While I certainly have mixed feelings about AGPL, you have not made a very persuasive argument. AGPL's justification for requiring that you distribute source is clearly the same as GPL's: "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish." AGPL merely requires that you enable more people to have that freedom than the GPL does.
Care to point any other definition? Posted Jul 28, 2009 6:13 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] AGPL's justification for requiring that you distribute source is clearly the same as GPL's: "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish." That's merely freedom number 2, it can not trump freedom number 0. AGPL merely requires that you enable more people to have that freedom than the GPL does. AGPL severely limits my freedom number 0 for the sake of freedom number 2. It also imposes "freedom" number 3 effectively making it obligation for no good reason at all. It's like three laws of robotics: everyone agree it's good (even if impractical) laws, but put law number 3 above law number 2 (let alone law number 1) - and you have unmitigated disaster (as Asimov showed in his works). Situation with free software definition is the same: minor changes (like GPL => AGPL change) can convert acceptable thing to abomintaion.
Care to point any other definition? Posted Jul 27, 2009 18:17 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] The purpose of all Free Software licenses is to provide freedom to the user, not the developer. The developer, of course, has the freedom to choose which project gets to benefit from her talent and resources. One cannot fail to understand this and nonetheless be more logically correct than RMS, I'm afraid.
Care to point any other definition? Posted Jul 28, 2009 6:20 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The purpose of all Free Software licenses is to provide freedom to the user, not the developer. There are no distinguished users and developers in this world. Everyone uses the software and a lot of people change the software - especially if it's simple set of web scripts. The stated goals are "freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software". But what about the situation where these freedoms are in conflict? RMS showed how copyright is about conflicting goals of the same people - and how big corporations perverted these goals. The same thing starts to happen with free software with the advent of AGPL.
|
|||||||||||||