[Discuss] Profiting from GPL software

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)]

On 11/10/2015 4:51 PM, Mike Small wrote:
> don't escape arguments with those folk.  Without the explanation it
> calls to mind independent film or music. Fits in some sense perhaps

As well it should. Independent film and music are not encumbered by the 
controls and policies of the MPAA and RIAA.


> to the sense of autonomy. e.g. proprietary software that lets me
> do my taxes without help from an accountant might make me feel
> independent but not particularly free.

It's still the same meaning. Independence = not under "their" control, 
whoever "they" may be. Independence unequivocally means free as in 
freedom. The context provides a specific direction for that 
independence. Nobody with a clue would confuse "independence software" 
with "independent film". At least I hope not.

Of course, the irony of it is that the GPL is not free as in freedom for 
everyone. Recipients of GPL software benefit from the terms of the 
license. Contributors to, and distributors of, GPL software are placed 
under onerous, burdensome requirements. This is why I spell out "free as 
in FSF" when I mean RMS' particular brand of "freedom".


> They've gone with the word free since forever. Coining a new word
> wouldn't be useful now (and it wasn't when Eric Raymond and Bruce
> Perens did it either IMO).

Doesn't stop RMS from trying: Tivoization. Swindle. RMS insists that 
"Swindle" is the correct name for Amazon's line of readers. Really. He 
says he does it to mock his enemies.

Well, I do it to mock mine, as with Stallmanized and "free as in FSF". 
I'm a libertarian with anarcho-capitalist leanings. Anti-capitalist 
socialists are my natural enemy :).

> I'll think of it as cooperative software but say free software.

And RMS would chew you out for missing the point of free as in FSF 
software. I'll simply chide you for associating something sane with the FSF.

-- 
Rich P.