Slashdot Mirror


Freedom or Power?

mpawlo writes: "As reported by Gnuheter, a new essay published by Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard M. Stallman carries the title "Freedom or Power?". The authors state something that we might have suspected from essays from Kuhn and Stallman before, but now is a little more clear, if still ambiguous: "However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom." The essay is interesting in the light of an earlier essay published by Eric S Raymond. ... Tim O'Reilly started the debate with his weblog of July 28, 2001: My definition of freedom zero." Ed. note - FWIW, Stallman and Kuhn are right. Not necessarily in their advocacy of the GPL, but certainly in their description of whether licensing is freedom for the developer or power over others. All licensing stems from copyright law, a completely man-made creation whose sole purpose is to give the writer of creative works artificial power over what others do with those works. If you take the canonical description of freedom ("Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins") and apply it to software, it's pretty clear that true freedom would not let one person control what another does with software.

2 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. Where is that GNU icon from? by moreati · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What is the icon that slashdot uses for GNU meant to be? To me it looks like a goat with a security blanket sucking his/her/it's thumb.

    Really this isn't a piss take, i do want to know.

    (Yes, I'm that bored right now)

    Alex W

  2. Re:The freedom to swing your fist by CleanTroath · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Open Source's GPL itself requires a hierarchy to maintain it, although it was designed to fight a hierarchy.

    In the immortal words of Eric Arthur Blair (better know as George Orwell):

    "Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age; but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other."

    If you want to change the hierarchy, change the human being.