Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
> what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

Good point.

There's something else I realized that's cognitively dissonant.

Software can't be free in the libre sense. "Free software" is just another 
word for "constrained people."  It's just as confusing to talk about 
software that's "free" as it is to confuse gratis with libre.

What do I mean?

Software doesn't make choices. More freedom means having more choices. 
Before the civil war, some people in this country had the freedom to own 
slaves. They could decide to own slaves, or not own slaves. After that, we 
took away their freedom to own slaves and instead gave the former slaves 
choices as to what they could do.

Software doesn't make choices. So software can't be "more free" or "less 
free". It can only affect the freedoms of people. The only way it makes 
sense to talk about "how free is this software/license" is to evaluate it 
with respect to what people actually do.

If I restrict the license to prevent you from doing certain things with the 
software I wrote, that doesn't make you more free. It makes you less free. 
It doesn't affect the software at all - the software is what it is and 
doesn't make choices. So the GPL is not as "free" as the MIT license, 
because it restricts the choices that someone other than the author can 
make. The author, of course, can make any choice he wants about his own 
original software - no argument there. But the authors who release their 
work under the GPL aren't making it "more free" than otherwise. They're 
simply saying "I'd rather not have improvements than have proprietary 
improvements, because the third level of improvements will be delayed." 
People releasing under the MIT license are saying "we hope you improve this, 
even if we decline to pay for the improvements."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message