Free != Freedom
I just love the pretensions to greatness that Stallman has. Consider today's bleat from him:
Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the rest, offer you software that gives them power over you. A change in executives or companies is not important. What we need to change is this system.
That's what the free software movement is all about. "Free" refers to freedom: we write and publish software that users are free to share and modify.
No, that would be a license like the MIT or BSD. The GPL, which Stallman champions, is as handcuffing in its own way as any of the proprietary licenses he rails against. There is such a thing as "golden handcuffs", and Stallman would have us all wearing them. No thanks.
Hat tip Rob Fahrni.
Comments
The GPL works toward his stated goals
[tonyg] July 5, 2008 19:00:09.065
And yet, is it not true that, by using the GPL, "... we write and publish software that users are free to share and modify"?
sharing...
[ James Robertson] July 5, 2008 20:27:10.886
Comment by James Robertson
We are free to share so long as we conform to the rules laid out in the GPL, sure. How is that different from any other license that restricts rights?
The Whole Story
[W^L+] July 5, 2008 21:00:51.933
The truth is, he is correct in saying that GPL software gives you those rights, which are not found in most closed source licenses. You are correct in saying that the MIT and BSD licenses also confer those rights, but allow you to bundle MIT/BSD licensed software within something that is licensed differently without changing your other software's license. GPL software requires that the software it is bundled in also confer those rights, which is the whole point of the license. How is it a "bleat" to point this out?
If Apple's success over the past few years has proven anything, it is that the most closed and restrictive licensed platforms and products can be wildly successful if they offer a superior user experience (mainly integration and the all-important fit & finish). While there are some who will avoid anything "non-free" at any cost, most of us use the computer to accomplish something, so we are willing to give up some "freedom" for functionality, reliability, and attractiveness.
I do not see RMS or the FSF and their GPL/LGPL licenses as a threat to Cincom. I think that Smalltalk offers most of the advantages of open source (including the ability to see and edit the code) even when it is licensed as closed source. Furthermore, it is a big market, with plenty of room for GPL, MIT, BSD, and other licensed software to thrive together. Rather than talking down the GPL, talk up the advantages that Cincom's products offer, including the fit and finish together with the ability to see/edit code. You have some exceptional products in the pipeline. Let's not get into a spitting match over licensing right now.
[David] July 6, 2008 20:23:12.011
When will Cincom make Smalltalk open source? Your remaining three companies that haven't yet upgraded to Ruby on Rails yet could benefit...
Re: Free != Freedom
[ James Robertson] July 6, 2008 22:05:57.314
Comment by James Robertson
There's no revenue model that supports open sourcing our products