|
|
|
|
|
by davexunit
4666 days ago
|
|
>How much freedom does a non-programming user gain by having the source code? How much freedom does a non-journalist gain by having freedom of the press? I can understand the value of a free, uncensored press even though I am not a journalist. I think that users can understand the value of software freedom even though they do not write code. >Even more, these same non-programming users have greater freedom with BSD code, because it's more permissive. Incorrect. You are referring to the "freedom" to restrict another user by distributing nonfree software. The free software community is concerned with positive liberty[1] and freedom for the end-user instead of the copyright holder. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty |
|
The GPL is incompatible with several FOSS licenses including itself (GPLv2 only and GPLv3 being the best example) and such legal issues only serve to drive away potential users of those licenses.
Personally, that's why I find the Mozilla Public License 2.0 to be the only copyleft license I can trust. It's much clearer than the GPL, it doesn't have restrictions on dynamic linking, it is copyleft to itself but it allows code to be shipped under a defined secondary license. By default these are the entire *GPL family from v2, but it can be expanded to include other copyleft licenses such as MPLv1 or the CDDL if the developer so wishes, as long as the parts under the MPLv2 are available separately from the project under that license.
This stops license incompatibilities, something that the FSF needs to work on with their licensing scheme.