Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] Home NAS redux

On 01/02/2013 02:42 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:42:42 -0500
> Mark Woodward <markw at> wrote:
>> The GPL is more free than other licenses because it keeps you from
>> denying the freedom that allows you to succeed from others. The
>> freedom to deny freedom is not a freedom.
> The GPL is more restrictive than other licenses because it denies me
> the freedom to distribute free software published under those less
> restrictive (more permissive) licenses combined with GPL software.
What is "permissive" in this context? Is a license more "permissive" if 
it allows you to deny freedom to others? Like I have stated, the freedom 
to deny freedom is not a freedom.

If you want to use GPL code, you can do *anything* *you* want with it. 
If you wish to make money from it, there are no restrictions on your 
ability to do so. The *only* restriction you will encounter using the 
GPL is the ability to deny subsequent users the very "freedoms" that you 
have enjoyed. Thus, the GPL is more free than other so called less 
restrictive licenses.

You can use any number of GPL programs, unmodified, in any number of 
products and you could make millions or billions doing so. Many 
companies do. How is this not free? The only freedom you don't have is 
the freedom to deny others the freedom you enjoy.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves"
Abraham Lincoln.

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /