On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:30:12 +0200 Moritz Bartl <mor...@headstrong.de> wrote:
> choices. For instance, a small country might want to take advantage of > further improvements by others to its software and would be more > inclined to fund open source projects with licenses that limit > commercial utilization, such as the General Public License. > This argument needs to be killed once and for all. As long as it is used by the enemies of freedom, it will be believed and taken into account as a problem by institutions. I don't know of a really good answer already formulated to dispel this fallacy though, do you? I would look at reformulating "commercial utilization" as what it is: vendor-locking and anti-competitive behavior. The GPL limits vendor-locking, and favors competition by providing an even playground for all industrial actors regardless of their size and capacity to produce code; considering public code as infrastructure, like language. Nobody would argue that limiting access to language is a genuine business practice (although promoters of 'intellectual property' would certainly disagree.) == hk -- hellekin <h...@gnu.org> _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
