[Linux4christians] Re: Weighing in on the Freespire debate

[Alan Trick]

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 07:12 -0400, David Fierbaugh wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 May 2006 15:23, Rachel Ramey wrote:
> > << If freedom, as a concept, is what is intended, that
> >  brings up a whole new area for discussion, and I'm afraid I don't really
> >  see the issue, since surely the creator of a software application has
> >  the right to say how it can or cannot be used and/or modified.  >>
> >
> > Ben, I'm with you on this one.  I think that Free (as a concept) software
> > is wonderful, and I wouldn't mind seeing more of it, but I think it's
> > ridiculous to expect that *every* application should be Free.  If we
> > believe that software *must* be Free, we defeat the whole purpose of the
> > concept in the first place, as we are destroying the creator's natural
> > copyright.  Only if the creator *has* a copyright to willingly surrender is
> > there any "Freedom" in the provision of the program.
> >
> 
> Nothing in the GPL says ALL software has to be free, in fact it is VERY 
> careful to say just the opposite. It just says that 'Free' (freedom) software 
> must stay 'Free'.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the GPL says that the
Free software _under the GPL_ must stay free. There's nothing keeping me
from releasing something under a BSD or MIT style licence, and many
great Free software projects use those licenses.