Out of curiosity, I checked out the free software foundation online to see what they had going for them. I learned that open-source software allows the user to examine the original source code, modify it to suit his purposes, and ensure that there is no spyware or other malware in the software. All good, right?
Then I discovered that there are strings attached. Much like commercial software companies, they impose licensing restrictions on the software and will make your life hell if they catch you breaking one of them.
Since Jacobsen v. Katzer, free, open-source software has been legally-protected intellectual property (if indeed one may properly call this phenomena "protection"). Indeed, the "free software" people have an organization dedicated to policing people's usage of Linux and Gnu software. Now, even using "free" software, you are not safe from lawyers.
Says Linus Torvolds: "It really is that simple. The kernel was released with a few rules.... It's not a democracy. Copyright is a right. Authors matter."
Since "authors matter", they each decide what strings to attach to their software. Now, there are dozens of separate licenses to read and comply with in order to legally use "free" software--a bit difficult for somebody who just wants to put together a computer system from scratch and make it work.
So, why should I stop using Vista?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi:So, why should I stop using Vista?
So why not ask them?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
As I understand those restrictions are more defensive than anything else. They have two kinds of licenses. The GPL and the LGPL. The easiest way to think of this is to compare it to Creative Commons licenses. The GPL is like the "ShareAlike" license and the LGPL is like the "Attribution" license. I think they are sometimes too "puritanical" in their rhetoric but overall I think they do good work for the future of software freedom.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
You should stop using Vista because it's a horrid abomination on par with the Mistake Edition.
This is why I like the BSD license most of all. You just attribute the authors in your source, but you're not legally liable to release the source at all.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
ama gi: Since "authors matter", they each decide what strings to attach to their software. Now, there are dozens of separate licenses to read and comply with in order to legally use "free" software--a bit difficult for somebody who just wants to put together a computer system from scratch and make it work.
To the FSF, authors don't matter. They don't believe in the "ownership" of software. Protection of software freedom matters. If they were forced to write proprietary software, they wouldn't even write it.
It is about distribution, not the matter of usage. If you're just using free software, you have no obligation under the GPL. But if you do distribute, you will have to follow the license.
Of course, unlike the RIAA, the people who enforce the licensing will talk to you quietly about copyright issue. Very rarely do you hear megacorporation getting sued. Most rather not risk reputation damage or obstraization and instead settle.
Granted, the license profliberation is a problem. That's why there has been effort to guide projects to using common license. Most people use MIT, GPL, or other major license anyway so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
Of course, I rather much see copyright disappear into the wind.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap