🚀 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?

jesse@franklin.com (Jesse Perry) said:

Jesse> What point are you trying in your last sentence?

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 use of "truly" in defining "freed" seems apt to be mistaken
Jesse> for Mathew's idea of "Truly Free Software," but I have to assume
Jesse> (based on your pro-FSF comments) that you don't actually agree
Jesse> with him.

I use the FSF definition of "free", Mathews definition of "truly
free", and FSF's definition of "hoarded".  I don't want to participate
in the truly boring word definition wars.

Jesse> But ignoring that, your 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.

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.

BTW, please note that the FSF controls how their code is distributed,
you control how your code is distributed, and you will have to agree
on how a combined program is distributed.  If you can't agree, then
neither of you can distribute the combined program.  That is position
[2] above.

Jesse> This impression is only furthered by the habit many FSF
Jesse> supporters have of coloring their arguments with a tone
Jesse> of assumed moral superiority (e.g., non-source licensing
Jesse> is "software hoarding").

I agree. I wish RMS would use more neutral terms, so we could discuss
the issues instead of the words.  However, that is probably too much
to ask, given how strongly he feels about these things.

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