Posted by: Anonymous
on February 04, 2008 05:35 PM
Holy cow! Another reasonable person? Welcome aboard.
To the two readers addressing the "anonymous critic of Free software": You guys have misinterpreted my position. I'm not a critic of free software, I simply differ from you on our interpretation of the word "free". I believe truly free software doesn't have stipulations of control over it's use maintained by it's authors. This is why the GPLv2 is a free license, it's also why the GPLv3 isn't. Yes, I know, "to preserve the freedoms of the many . . . . blah, blah, blah" That's certainly your right as a code author, just don't pretend the code is free anymore. You're still controlling it's use and implementation through your choice of the GPLv3. When I use the term "zealot", it's to point out the narrow, self serving, and hypocritical version of "freedom" you've chosen to support. If you feel marginalized as a result, I have two suggestions. 1) listen to your conscience, and 2) understand (along with the "lets not [compromise]" commentator below you) that you are promoting a radical faction that has become more concerned with forcing their version of "freedom" on the world than with actually producing good, free code that serves it's users. I don't have a problem with that, you're welcome to choose whatever ideal floats your boat, just don't pretend that by removing freedom (and then equivocating about it), your supporting free software. The ends do not justify the means, and the GPLv3 is just another method of control. As I've said, this time the control is used to enforce your interpretation of "Freedom", instead of for profit. Again, I'm ok with whatever license you choose for your code, lets just be honest about fundamental principles - otherwise your "logical conclusion" is based on a lie.