[Discuss] Home NAS redux

[Mark Woodward]

On 01/02/2013 04:25 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:33:30 -0500
> Mark Woodward <markw at mohawksoft.com> wrote:
>
>> If you want to use GPL code, you can do *anything* *you* want with
>> it.
> No, I cannot. The GPL binds software to itself. It is in this way that
> GPL projects like the Linux kernel have taken from BSD without giving
> anything back. They can't. Derivatives of GPL software are themselves
> GPL software. Accepting code from the Linux kernel back into BSD would
> turn the entire BSD tree into GPL software. The various BSD projects
> refuse to accept the terms of the GPL.

This is an unfortunate circumstance, but hardly an example of where GPL 
is not free. Refusal to accept the terms of a license is a completely 
voluntary decision.

The BSD license has allowed a great deal of software to be subverted to 
the detriment of the various BSD projects. This is a perfect example of 
how the BSD license does not protect your freedom. Granted in an ironic way.
>
> Forcing someone to accept unwanted license terms in order to share in,
> and benefit from, open source software development is not "freedom". It
> is a denial of freedom.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. A software author chooses the 
GPL to protect the users of his software. If you want to modify or use 
GPL code, that was not originally written by you, then you must abide by 
the GPL by which you acquired the software. The GPL protects subsequent 
user's from your apparent desire to deny their access to the source 
code. If you have a problem with the GPL, then don't use someone else's  
GPL software. I still do not see what the problem is. There is no force 
being used.

The *only* thing you can't do is make it non-free when distributing it. 
That is hardly a restriction to *your* freedom, it merely prevents you 
from making it less free for others.

>   And as you quote:
>
> "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves"
> --Abraham Lincoln.
>
> Neither of us are right or wrong. We have different perspectives.
Well, I'm not a fan of equivocation. I disagree with you and I believe 
you to be wrong. You may believe differently and that is your right, but 
I do not accept a diminishment of my argument simply because we continue 
to disagree.

>