[Discuss] OSS licenses (was Home NAS redux)

[markw at mohawksoft.com (Mark Woodward)]

On 01/09/2013 07:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
>> From: Mark Woodward [mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com]
>>
>> The freedom to deny freedom is NOT a freedom. By combining the FREE
>> software with NON-FREE software you can create NON-FREE software. This
>> does not protect FREE software.
> This is not a freedom of denying freedom.  It does not deny any freedom - Any 3rd party recipient of the non-free software can still obtain the free software.

Think about what happened to Kerberos under the MIT license. You always 
ignore this point in your replies and this is a fundamental point in the 
debate.
>
>
>> It is your right to create non-free software. It is your time and effort
>> i.e. "personal capital." No one who supports freedom would deny you
>> that, and I myself make my living doing so.  However, taking someone
>> else's "personal capital" which you acquired exercising your freedoms,
>> modifying it it and then denying anyone the same freedoms for the whole
> It is impossible for anybody to download free software, modify it, distribute it, and in doing so, prevent me from obtaining the original free software.  They can only prevent recipients from obtaining the parts that they themselves contributed.

Ahh, and here is where ethics, rights, and freedom come into play. You 
keep missing the point, I'm pretty sure you are doing it intentionally 
at this juncture.

You acquired free software. You have the freedom to do so. You modify 
the free software. You have the freedom to do so. What gives you the 
moral or ethical right to create a non-free product with that free 
software you got for free? Freedom to deny freedom is not a freedom. If 
you wish to create non-free software, you have the right to do so, but 
to corrupt free software with non-free components is counter to the 
notion of freedom. The GPL protects the freedom of the software as a 
whole from this practice.

>
>> the freedom to deny freedom is not a freedom.
> Quit saying that, because there has not yet been any situation described where anybody has the power to deny anybody else's freedom.  It sounds like an extremist chest-thumping rhetoric.

It is an important concept and it is an ideal that is at the core of 
real freedom.  "Real" freedom is not free. There are rules and costs 
associated with it. It is vital to understand that the freedom to deny 
freedom is not a freedom. If everyone applied that simple rule to daily 
life, the world would be a better place.


>