----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Prescod" <paulp at ActiveState.com> Subject: Re: OT - Closing Off An Open-Source Product > Chris Watson wrote: > > > > First lets agree on something if we can. I have always made it clear the > > GPL is not a free license. The delusion that it is boggles me. > > The GPL tried to protect the freedom of end-users to modify and > redistribute their code. Most people do not believe that this is a > legitimate freedom like freedom of speech or assembly but Richard > Stallman does. I don't think that there is an argument that will > persuade a person one way or another. If freedoms could be proven, that > famous document would probably start: "Not everyone holds these truths > to be self-evident, so we've worked up a proof of them as Appendix A." Very clear explanation. I never really thought of it that way... RMS uses the biblical "golden rule" as his guiding theory, and that's always how I explained it, but your point clarifies it for me. > Either you believe in IP or you don't. Either you believe in the freedom > to copy whatever you want, whenever you want, or you don't. So I don't > see how further argument would resolve anything. How about if you both do and don't believe in IP? In principle, the idea that a programmer (author, artist, etc.) should be given primary money-making control over his or her work is quite reasonable (to me anyway). However, IP (copyright and patent) is *used* as a Big Club by bigger guys to *smack* little guys, rather than as a protection for the little guys against the bigger ones. For that reason I am very suspicious of anyone who even *mentions* IP to me (unless I know they are talking about Internet Protocol :-). GPL is a direct affront to those people specifically. The Internet has turned IP on it's ear. How do you "protect" software or other published works in a world where rapid communication makes your "enemies" far more powerful than you can ever hope to be? Free software is protected by various Free Software and/or Open Source licenses; I submit that the "hacker ethic" is the real protection here anyway, because if a "big guy" steals a major piece of, oh, say, Apache and incorporates it in a closed source program, it's darn hard to prove. In summary (yes, you can breathe now) I think (fear? hope?) that IP in the current sense is doomed. Napster may go down in flames, but OpenNap will likely live forever... I think that says it all.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4