From: Chad Perrin Date: 2007-10-15T14:25:54+09:00 Subject: Re: MIT vs. Ruby/GPL License On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 01:35:03PM +0900, Jeremy Henty wrote: > On 2007-10-15, Jon Lambert wrote: > > > > Jeremy Henty wrote: > >> > >> The GPL gives the *user* *complete* freedom. It restricts *other* > >> activities, such as distributing a derived work, but it imposes no > >> restrictions on simply using the software. > > > > Using that limited definition of user, one who "simply uses the > > software", most proprietary licenses also give the user complete > > freedom. > > Including the freedom to install and run the software *without* paying > anything for it? I think not. And at my last office job I didn't see > any proprietary software whose license did not restrict either the > number of installation hosts or the number (total or concurrent) of > users. GPL software has no such usage restrictions. Considering we were talking about "freedom", I didn't think we were talking about "free cost". The user does not necessarily get "complete freedom" (for instance, I'm in the odd position of having a bunch of GPLed software on a shelf that I cannot legally give away for free, thanks to the rules relating to upstream linking for GPLv2). Many of those cases are largely unimportant, but the fact that restrictions still exist should not be ignored. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the GPL (nor that there isn't, per se) at the moment. I'm just trying to stick to the cold, hard facts of the matter. Considering ruby-talk isn't exactly the proper venue for an ideological war, I think we'd all appreciate it if you would do the same rather than simply applying the blanket term Freedom to all things GPL and defend it to your last breath -- as you seem to be gearing up to do. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Paul Graham: "Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to build programs out of the wrong concepts."