[Marxism] this vi-rus is evil!

Mallard Q. Duck mqduck at sonic.net
Tue Feb 3 01:34:50 MST 2004

Jose G. Perez wrote:

>This is precisely the difference between "open source" and "free" (as in
>freedom) software. The GNU general public license forces you to license
>as free software anything you distribute that incorporates free
>software: you can't build anything into GNU/Linux and distribute it that
>is not free software. You are forbidden from incorporating free software
>into an app unless that app is also licensed as free software.
Actually, that's the difference between "copylefted" free software and 
other free software, such as software in the public domain. The BSD 
licence is a free licence, but "not a very good one" in the eyes of the 
Free Software Foundation, because it is not a "copyleft". The term 
"copyleft" is literally meant to mean "copyright serving the opposite 
purpose of most copyrights." In other words, "the licenses for most 
software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. 
By contrast, [copyleft licenses are] intended to guarantee your freedom 
to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for 
all its users." Copylefts guarantee you freedom, and only take away your 
freedom to deny freedom to others. Not all those who support free 
software projects are guided by "Free Software Ideology." The BSDs are a 
great example of this.

"Open source" software is any in which the source code is "open," 
including but not limited to free software. It includes software that 
conflicts with the FSF's Four Freedoms, which I believe I posted 
earlier. If I add a requirement to the GPL that you must pay me if you 
make money by redistributing copies of my software, it is still "open 
source," but not "free."

-Jeffrey Piercy

More information about the Marxism mailing list