🚀 go-pugleaf

abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>
>>    That's the famous "what's  your's is mine, what's mine is mine"
>>philosophy, isn't it?
>
>Jesse> What point are you trying in your last sentence?
>
>Please compare (Mathews position)
>[1]	"what's truly free can be hoarded, what is hoarded can't be freed"
>with (the GPL position)
>[2]	"what's free can't be hoarded, what is hoarded can't be freed"
>
>[
>  For "freed" please read: Used as a component in a (truly) free product.
>  For "hoarded" please read: Used as a component in a hoarded product.
>]

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

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

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


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