Re: [tlug] linux in Japanese schools

[Godwin Stewart <godwin.stewart@example.com>]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:07:23 +0900 (JST), Curt Sampson
<cjs@example.com> wrote:

> With GPL'd software, the situation seems to me exactly the opposite.
> You have many more restrictions on what you can do with this software;
> for example, you cannot change the source, keep your changes secret,
> and sell your new version, as you can with the BSD license.

No, because half of the GPL's "raison d'être" is protection of *users*
of thusly-licensed software. If you keep the modified source secret and
sell binaries, you're denying your users the freedom of examining your
modified software and making their own changes to it.

In a way, it can almost be argued that the GPL is designed to protect
the software that is released under its terms rather than protecting
the author(s) and users. By releasing software under the GPL you are
ensuring that all will be able to benefit from it and from its derived
works in the future, while by releasing it under a BSD licence you're
running the risk of a branch becoming dead-ended by commercial
enterprise.

> Why is it claimed that the GPL is "free as in speech" when it places
> more restrictions on the freedom of the users of the software than the
> BSD (or many other) open source licenses?

The GPL doesn't impose restrictions on users. It imposes restrictions
on developers and distributors so that *they* don't curtail users'
rights, and in doing so it further *protects* users' rights.

--
G. Stewart - godwin.stewart@example.com

"I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."

Attachment: pgpSSko4zRvOh.pgp
Description: PGP signature