🚀 go-pugleaf

jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
jhenders>    That's the famous "what's  your's is mine, what's mine is mine"
jhenders>philosophy, isn't it?

abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
Per>Please compare (Mathews position)
Per>[1] "what's truly free can be hoarded, what is hoarded can't be freed"
Per>with (the GPL position)
Per>[2] "what's free can't be hoarded, what is hoarded can't be freed"
Per>
Per>[
Per>  For "freed" please read: Used as a component in a (truly) free product.
Per>  For "hoarded" please read: Used as a component in a hoarded product.
Per>]

Jesse> your [Per's] position summaries seem only loosely
Jesse> related to the original quote.

>Try to replace "your's" with "(truly) free" and "mine" with "hoarded"
>in [1].  Do you get it now?  I believe that was how jhenders intended
>the quote to be read.

I think you're right.  Thanks.

Jesse> My view of that quote is that it's a perfect statement of what
Jesse> I dislike in the GPL, which says to people who use FSF code to
Jesse> build new programs: "The work you do belongs to us (i.e., we
Jesse> insist on complete control of any distribution terms), and
Jesse> naturally, what we write also belongs to us."  This gives me an
Jesse> impression of both arrogance and inflexibility.

>Seen from hoarders (FSF definition) point of view, position [1] is
>clearly more flexible.

It's merely the "non-FSF" point of view.  And yes, I also see position
[1] as more flexible.

>Personaly, I try to ignore the "colering" of the words (like "truly
>free" and "hoarders"), and concentrate on their contents.

I would do the same in a face-to-face discussion.  But in a semi-public
forum like this, it's always a disadvantage to adopt the opposition's
description of a situation.


Jesse Perry   jesse@franklin.com   uunet!frnkmth!jesse