🚀 go-pugleaf

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:
> >Or, less blatantly unreasonable, they say our
> >work is not "really free"--because it requires them to respect
> >freedoms of others which they would rather be free to deny.  (You
> >might as well say that a society is not "really free" unless people
> >are free to own slaves.)...

It should be clear that the position the FSF is taking is one of "benign
control"--in effect, too many bad things (in their judgment) happened when
the software was subject to no controls.

We might be better off if we didn't invest so much emotional value in the
word "free" that we felt compelled to label more freedom as unconditionally
better.

[sef]
> Of course, we should ignore, in this discussion, those people who write
> truly free code (Public Domain) yet refuse to use GNU code because they do
> not want *their* code being inflicted with a liscense they consider morally
> repugnant.  After all, bringing up those people into the discussion would
> harm your point.

There is also a close relative to PD, namely "freely redistributable",
which is almost as free (certainly less encumbered than copylefted code)
and probably a better idea than PD.

As long as FSF has copies of code, and will distribute that code (either
directly, or indirectly via others who agree with their approach), the code
couldn't be "locked away" even without copyleft.  Copyleft is a means of 
imposing control (a restriction of freedom) over the code, to achieve some
perceived social good.

Now, look:  Some folks think this control is good, that the restriction is
less of a problem than what results if the control isn't there.  If you
look at the origins of the FSF, it's not hard to understand the viewpoint.
(I see it as "valid reasoning" even though I disagree with the value judg-
ments which drive it.)  Other folks find the control a problem; they would
rather make the code completely free of restrictions, even though that
means some folks will take advantage of (mis-use) the freedom.  It is often
the case that when many people have many freedoms, some of them are going
to do things you don't like.  That's the way liberty works.  We commonly
give up some liberties to avoid some problems and form a working social
order.  The issue is where to draw the line--how much freedom to give up.

It would help if people could recognize that the similarities between the
"copyleft" crowd and the "PD/freely-redistributable" crowd are greater than
their differences--we're trying to achieve many of the same goals but in
different ways.  Emotionally loaded phrases like "free to own slaves" cause
problems for both sides.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...Simpler is better.