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.

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.

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, 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. I want to listen to your thoughts and refine the consistency of values ​​and philosophy.

i could make parallels such as karl marx and pure forms of communism; the parallel is that some things are great in theory but the acid test is the real world.


So you name me linux distro's that have no "none free" software in them; you won't find many.

https://www.gnu.org/distros

Not sure if this will address your question, but, to my mind, GPL is very much protective of intellectual property rights. I myself do not offer all my work under GPL. But when I do, I am saying others are free to copy, modify, and even make money on what I've done. But if someone wanted to then restrict its use, even claiming exclusive copyright privileges, that would violate my intellectual rights over the work I've done, which includes my decision to offer it freely to others. GPL seems to best protect against that happening.

4 members found this post helpful.

That's a good idea. I admit it. It seems clear that it is a license to preserve and defend copyright holders' intentions due to its infectious nature. But there seems to be some logical conflict. I'm hazy in my head right now. Maybe I should take some time to think while reading more articles related to it.

I do recall that there was a bit of controversy when the GPL was updated from v. 2 to v. 3.

If I remember correctly, Linus Torvalds has maintained the kernel license under v. 2 because of his--er--discontent with some of the changes in v. 3.

1 members found this post helpful.

No one forces developers to release their software under the GPL license. It's completely voluntary. -

Since we all seem to be feeding what is obviously a troll, and a lame one at that, two things should be pointed out:

1) The copyleft versus non-reciprocal licenses apportion freedom to either the end user and to the developer respectively. A license is just another tool and like with everything else, it is a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. Though for the most part, non-reciprocal licenses are what you want your competitors to be using, to paraphrase Eben Moglen.

2) Linux (the kernel) would never have gotten anywhere with another license. Linus acknowledges that and considers his choice of the GPL as one of the best decisions of his career. Backing up his statement is the fact that Linux (the kernel) very clearly dominates in every domain of computing except desktops.

At the online edition of HOPE2020, Cory Doctorow has recently provided a fresh perspective on the how adding copyright to software has changed the industry and why copyleft is essential. Cory has a transcript of his talk available somewhere, if reading is faster and easier than listening.

2 members found this post helpful.

Maybe I'm wrong--it may be hard to believe, but it's happened before--but OP's post did not seem trollish to me. And trolls rarely say things like

Licenses are complicated things, and I've seen the differences between various free software licenses lead to long and convoluted discussions.

Just my two cents.

I just wanted to get a deeper understanding of free software philosophy, so I asked members of the community for their opinions. As the history of free software and GNU projects has been around for a long time, I never thought there would have been much discussion on this topic. I am very sorry that it seems to blame you or to devalue volunteers. There was no purpose at all to cause a great dissension. It's my mistake. I'll just look for an article by myself.

I never expected this topic to look like a troll. There was no such intention at all. No further discussion seems necessary. It's all my fault. I'm sorry.

While that may have not been the intent, that is how that kind of question is commonly used these last few decades. A paraphrase of that question is often thrown into forums and mailing lists, like a piece of bread in a duck pond, to watch the frenzy. So apologies if my response gave offense.

Since you are looking for articles, the talk which I mention above by Cory Doctorow is available in written form at Locus simply as IP. However, I would also recommend listening to the few minutes of the other talk linked above where Linus Torvalds discusses the importance of the GPL.

2 members found this post helpful.

From my perspective, no apology is necessary. All you did was ask a question in good faith.

2 members found this post helpful.

Thank you very much. The links you attached will be very helpful for my journey. I'll make sure to check all the links.

Thank you for the link!

We are all in this together now, eyball deep in a very dark Orwellian nightmare.

The concept of "intellectual property" is the greatest impediment to that human FREEDOM ever devised.

Freedom is not the product of a license. Freedom is absence of license.

Read and understand...

This.

NuttyJamie, you aren't a troll but you have chosen to discuss a topic that has been over-discussed endlessly and is guaranteed to evoke a sizeable and controversial reaction (and these are hallmarks of trolling).

My take on the topic at hand is simple:
We all contribute to something that benefits us in the end. So this "altruism" also includes a portion of "egoism", it benefits me personally.
There.
My contributions might be very small, but there's a real grassroot effect.
I hope people won't forget that that's what GNU/Linux is built on. Because nowadays it looks like it, and I fear the day when they realise that without that foundation there's no, well, foundation anymore.