Re: [tlug] Proprietary derivatives of FLOSS and other absurdities [was: Why Hollywood does break foreign films ?]

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2013-08-15 16:19 +0900 (Thu), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Correct.  However, the "free" in "free code" is an absolute, defined
> by RMS's "four freedoms", with the GPL being a least free license that
> is compatible with that definition.....

Ah, I see. I think you were just missing the quotes around "free"
that would have signaled me that this particular (to me somewhat odd)
definition of "free" is what was being used.

> ...BSD provides the maximum amount of freedom concerning the *copy*
> in front of you, while the GPL guarantees freedom for the (abstract)
> "Work" in question, or alternatively for all copies that will ever be
> made.

When put like this, it actually seems to clarify to me why Stallman's
definition of "free" doesn't make sense. A software program doesn't have
freedom; a person has freedom to do or not do things. You cannot, as far
as I can tell, grant any sort of freedom to an abstract work, since an
abstract work contemplates no actions to be restricted or not.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson         <cjs@example.com>         +81 90 7737 2974

To iterate is human, to recurse divine.
    - L Peter Deutsch