To some degree it's true. And there is reason: making a copy of program on it's own does not costs anything. That's what makes this approach valid and what makes it's odd to charge for copy of program on it's own.What GPL resembles is communism; only GPL shall exist, nothing more, nothing less. In what universe is that freedom?
And btw, communism in it's core isn't evil on it's own. And not anyhow worse than capitalism or anything else. It's bad when it's enforced. But look, in future, technologuical development could allow virtually unlimited copying of any material objetcs at virtually zero prices. It's nothing wrong to order some widespread automations to do the jobs and get results. Free of charge. And it would cost nearly $0 just as memcpy() costs you nearly $0. Because it could be just as common as memcpy() happens to be these days. This strange world will be world of all and nothing. Because you don't need to store or "own" objects if you can create them on demand. Should you need a car, it could be assembled where you need it and disintegrated where you no longer need it. So only your ability to create object's model suitable for construction matters. I can't tell what exact technology would be. Maybe molecular assembly devices/nanobots/whatever else is able form matter to pre-programmed shapes. But I can see families of technologies and I can see their final destination will be this point. At this point techs converge and give birth to new super-abilities. You see, in this world some ideas from communism are not looking too wild. In fact, everyone could get what they want by just shaping and transforming matter into desired object. Composing of objects under software control is probably doomed to become common and widespread as technology advances. Then what? At final point you can assemble anything that does not violates laws of physics. In such world some core ideas from communism could actually work. At least there are no reasons why they would not. So if we'll disregard fear and propaganda and will consider only some rational parts, it could map very well to technologies development.
And best of all: you can see early phases of all this today. 3D printers and CnC machines, robots, etc. All this is a very early form of new emerging technologies. But then techs will take a shape and will be improved. At some point they are doomed to reach destination endpoint: creation of any object, free of charge. It's promising to be very interesting to see how capitalists driven by greed have actually created set of technologies which can make capitalism really obsoleted. Just as it's getting obsolete to charge for a copy of program on it's own these days
Ok, then I definitely should live in your universe. Because there should be freedom to shot you and go unpunished, isn't it? I want to have my absolute freedom too in this case, if you can have it. Though, ideally, I would prefer freedom to order bunch of nanobots do slow disintegration of your butt. It should be more fun and you will have enough time to actually enjoy by your own logic applied to your own butt in most literal sense I can imagine. Then we'll see if you're really serious about giving everyone absolute freedom to do whatever they want to...NOT IN MINE.
There are no better definitions anyway. Some freedoms HAVE to be restricted just to prevent even more restrictions caused by using these freedoms. You see, it tends to self-balance at some point.Sure, thats what everybody says. The truth is that i've rarely found such a vague 'definition' of freedom; basically you use freedom in the definition of freedom. It's not as simple as that.
Somewhat you're right. And I even agree that just as it's bad to enforce communism with a guns, it's also generally bad to force you to give up your freedoms. However, if your usage of your freedoms begins to harm others, I see no reasons why force should not be applied. It's completely fair to harm you in return.The point is that freedom si a controversial term.
BSD provides anarchy (which is considered by some people as form of freedom, even though it usually leads to dictatorship after some time). GPL provides civilized interaction of equal entities (which more or less resembles modern ways to apply laws). I clearly prefer second option.Again, you fail to define precisely what freedom means. And it's not your fault; it is really REALLY difficult to do so. That's why I see BSD as providing freedom, and GNU as resembling communism, while you seem to think that GNU provides freedom. Well, that's why the controversy never ends.
Very good quote. One of my favorite ones. The only thing is that to actually implement this principle, the Constitution has been created (or similar sets of laws and/or international treaties quite similar in spirit). And look, the Constitution actually DOES limits SOME of freedoms to some degree. Just to make sure other freedoms are remaining available to everyone and nobody can seize them. You see, freedom needs protection. GPL does the very same thing - it places soLet me just quote this guy Benjamin Franklin: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Oh, immediately after all laws cancelled and perfect freedom (aka anarchy) takes place. If it's not a case, let's stick to civilized approach and encourage it while discouraging "king of the hill" methods of doing things.Anyway, stop dictating what freedom is and accept once and for all that the best you can do is say what freedom MEANS TO YOU.
Basically your speech implies that you're able to see your freedoms but absolutely failed to understand that evereyone else should have equal amount of freedom and that your use of your freedoms could impact freedoms of others. Hence your view seems to be biased - it's excessively egoistic (which is common for BSD nuts, looks like in the very deep of their spirit they're proprietary and greedy by their nature).