> In choosing the GPL, the author maintains that
> he would like to see his work stay free in
> every way. It is his right to do that, and as
> so, he must be respected
I disagree. Giving the author that right stomps all over my most basic rights (mainly that my brain is my own). If that author grants me access to his source code, I read it and digest it, then it becomes part of me, and the author certainly has no right to tell me what to do with what my brain has comprehended. Otherwise a piece of me is a slave to the author.
As for trade secrets; it's not the type of info, it's the access to it. If somebody keeps their source secret and protected and you hack into there system and copied there source code you would be guilty of trespassing. Notice that the system is physical property.
Touche! The GPL has everything to do with having power over other individuals and nothing to do with personal freedom. The BSD-style licenses (minus the advertising clause) are a much better option.
The GNU license is barking up the wrong tree. In trying to "free" software it puts shackles on anyone who later uses the software. It's not the software that we are trying to free, it is the humans! The "BSD-style" licenses (minus the advertising clause) are much more reasonable and much more free. There is certainly no sin in making money of software, nor protecting trade secrets. The only problem arises when you sell someone software and then use government force to keep them from doing whatever they want to with it (including copying it, reselling it, cracking copy protection, etc.). This is where our basic freedom's are compromised. The GNU license also compromises these freedoms.
The GNU license is barking up the wrong tree. In trying to "free" software it puts shackles on anyone who later uses the software. It's not the software that we are trying to free, it is the humans! The "BSD-style" licenses (minus the advertising clause) are much more reasonable and much more free. There is certainly no sin in making money of software, nor protecting trade secrets. The only problem arises when you sell someone software and then use government force to keep them from doing whatever they want to with it (including copying it, reselling it, cracking copy protection, etc.). This is where our basic freedom's are compromised. The GNU license also compromises these freedoms.
Well, you would still have root servers. But what I am proposing is getting rid of the fact that Verisign "owns".com, but I can register a.com name with GoDaddy.
the problem here is the idea of a shared public asset in ".com" with VeriSign as the maintainer. This is a broken idea from the start. Instead there should be ".vs" for VeriSign and ".gd" for GoDaddy. Then it is clear that these companies wholly own these root domains and they can do anything they want with them.
Slashdot Mirror
> In choosing the GPL, the author maintains that > he would like to see his work stay free in > every way. It is his right to do that, and as > so, he must be respected I disagree. Giving the author that right stomps all over my most basic rights (mainly that my brain is my own). If that author grants me access to his source code, I read it and digest it, then it becomes part of me, and the author certainly has no right to tell me what to do with what my brain has comprehended. Otherwise a piece of me is a slave to the author. As for trade secrets; it's not the type of info, it's the access to it. If somebody keeps their source secret and protected and you hack into there system and copied there source code you would be guilty of trespassing. Notice that the system is physical property.
Touche! The GPL has everything to do with having power over other individuals and nothing to do with personal freedom. The BSD-style licenses (minus the advertising clause) are a much better option.
The GNU license is barking up the wrong tree. In trying to "free" software it puts shackles on anyone who later uses the software. It's not the software that we are trying to free, it is the humans! The "BSD-style" licenses (minus the advertising clause) are much more reasonable and much more free. There is certainly no sin in making money of software, nor protecting trade secrets. The only problem arises when you sell someone software and then use government force to keep them from doing whatever they want to with it (including copying it, reselling it, cracking copy protection, etc.). This is where our basic freedom's are compromised. The GNU license also compromises these freedoms.
The GNU license is barking up the wrong tree. In trying to "free" software it puts shackles on anyone who later uses the software. It's not the software that we are trying to free, it is the humans! The "BSD-style" licenses (minus the advertising clause) are much more reasonable and much more free. There is certainly no sin in making money of software, nor protecting trade secrets. The only problem arises when you sell someone software and then use government force to keep them from doing whatever they want to with it (including copying it, reselling it, cracking copy protection, etc.). This is where our basic freedom's are compromised. The GNU license also compromises these freedoms.
Well, you would still have root servers. But what I am proposing is getting rid of the fact that Verisign "owns" .com, but I can register a .com name with GoDaddy.
the problem here is the idea of a shared public asset in ".com" with VeriSign as the maintainer. This is a broken idea from the start. Instead there should be ".vs" for VeriSign and ".gd" for GoDaddy. Then it is clear that these companies wholly own these root domains and they can do anything they want with them.