On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:02 PM, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO < vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br> wrote:
> > Lets try it. > > > > 0 < X < (Y + Z) > > Y > 0 > > Z > 0 > > > > ISC = X > > GPL = X + Y + Z > > > > Logical enough for you? > > > > If you assume that the definition of freedom is the number of > restrictions, then neither ISC nor GPL are free. The only free > license would be no license at all. Public domain. > > Free and Freedom are obviously relative terms, and the root cause of much of these circular debates. There is free as in no cost to possess. There is free as in liberty to modify and/or use. When it comes to licensing an end-user typically cares about the first variety of "free". A developer, and a sysadmin, are more interested in the second variety of "free". Most of Stallman's victims are confused with the first half of this debate, and don't see all the entangling strings that are attached to source code by the GPL. Thus, Linux users tend to not understand "Freedom" from a developer's viewpoint, or just about anyone on this list. > Since _my_ definition of freedom for software is different, I > reach different conclusions. > > Yeah, your own definitions of acceptable freedom adds a whole 'nother layer to the onion. > If a package does no restrict the way I use it, does permit me > to study it and modify it, distribute copies either modified or > verbatim, gratis or for a fee, then I consider it free, and I > will use it. > > For me, having to give the source, IF, AND ONLY IF, I distribute > the software, is fair. I would do it anyway. > > I don't think it's wrong for a copyright holder to ask that. > > That is your opinion. The GPL does much more than that. Please tell me why my BCM4321 card doesn't work under OpenBSD? I'll give you a hint.... http://www.daniweb.com/news/story218448.ht*ml* "OpenBSD developers have taken parts of the code and used it in their own version of the driver," >From what I understand of what actually happened, the OpenBSD developer did nothing more than use the Linux code to see memory mappings, etc. Nothing was copied. What he did was acceptable in a free world, but not in a GNU world. PS - I don't know for a fact that the BCM4321 worked under bcm43xx. I haven't tested it on linux, and I never will. Because of the fiasco I just mentioned I decided (as an amateur developer) that it is better I never look at Linux sys/kernel code. Please let this be my official statement for the record. The GNU appears to be a cancer which can be used to wrestle away my own code, if it even looks sideways at its Linux counterpart.
