Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Like I said, the only added freedom you enjoy by having MIT/BSD-ish rather than GPL is the freedom to remove freedoms downstream. And the ones that are not GPL are so precisely because the vendor wants to be able to remove freedoms downstream should the need or opportunity arise.

Are you aware of any other freedom I don't know about?




Yes. To allow "downstream" to do whatever they want with a piece of code I gave them being free from my command what to do.

-----


Including denying its users any freedom.

Tell me one freedom that does not involve denying freedoms and I'll give you the point. If, however, the only freedom you want is the one to deny freedoms, then, this argument became circular a couple messages back.

Using the GPL you deny no other freedom to your downstream users that that.

-----


Yes. Including denying its users any freedom.

"Freedom" is not black and white. Sometimes you need to deny users one freedom in order to give them another. For example, Spotify is a non-free application and it has DRM and lock-in and nasty things like that (no doubt required by the music industry). However, it's completely changed the way I listen to music and given me freedom to listen to more music than I could have done before. I have essentially traded the freedom to tinker for the freedom to listen to music.

-----


Actually, you traded your freedom to tinker for your ability to play whatever they chose to offer you. I hope you like their offering.

-----


  you traded your freedom to tinker
What kind of nonsense is this?

-----


Can you alter the music in any way for your consumption? Can you even listen to it in places a Spotify client is not available?

-----




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: