It's really hard to accept the philosophy of the Free Software Foundation.
by NuttyJamie from LinuxQuestions.org on (#5B98S)
It's been nearly 10 years since I used Linux for the first time out of curiosity. However, I have never considered "free software" profoundly. As I recently joined LQ, I was reminded of GNU/Linux and its philosophy. The products of the efforts made by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation are very thrilling and inspired me a lot. What is the meaning of freedom, how far is the responsibility and scope, how software should be handled, intellectual property rights and private property, and even socialism and capitalism.:study:
The GPL license, which contains the philosophy of free software, is probably the soul of the FSF. I fully agree with the intention to ensure the free use and modification of the software. However, 'contagion' is very difficult to understand right now.:confused:
Enforcement of the GPL license during redistribution violates the freedom of choice of the user who intends to redistribute, which seems to go against the cause of 'for freedom'. Rather, other open source licenses, such as the BSD and MIT licenses, seem more free in this area. The socialist idea that prioritizes the community over the individual is also revealed in the GNU manifesto. It says, Quote:
:doh:This is really nonsense!! I think this is a total denial of intellectual property rights.
The idea that prioritizes the value of the community over the assertion of individual private property is clearly socialism or totalitarianism. This part seems to me as a logical loophole to free software. Isn't it a treacherous look to violate freedom for the goal of expanding the influence of free software culture?
It may be something that my understanding is lacking or distorted.:scratch: I want to listen to your thoughts and refine the consistency of values and philosophy.
The GPL license, which contains the philosophy of free software, is probably the soul of the FSF. I fully agree with the intention to ensure the free use and modification of the software. However, 'contagion' is very difficult to understand right now.:confused:
Enforcement of the GPL license during redistribution violates the freedom of choice of the user who intends to redistribute, which seems to go against the cause of 'for freedom'. Rather, other open source licenses, such as the BSD and MIT licenses, seem more free in this area. The socialist idea that prioritizes the community over the individual is also revealed in the GNU manifesto. It says, Quote:
| Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?" If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs. |
The idea that prioritizes the value of the community over the assertion of individual private property is clearly socialism or totalitarianism. This part seems to me as a logical loophole to free software. Isn't it a treacherous look to violate freedom for the goal of expanding the influence of free software culture?
It may be something that my understanding is lacking or distorted.:scratch: I want to listen to your thoughts and refine the consistency of values and philosophy.