Why the distinction between free software and GPL software is important
art.alexion at verizon.net
Sun Apr 29 18:18:04 UTC 2007
On Sunday 29 April 2007 13:45, Art Alexion wrote:
> On Saturday 28 April 2007 07:43, Graham wrote:
> > Art Alexion wrote:
> > [snipped]
> > > When referring to an object -- like software-- rather than a living
> > > thing, most native English speakers probably presume free of cost
> > > unless context dictates the contrary.
> > Most people understand the concept of "free speech" as being speech
> > without restriction, the "free" being understood as freedom.
> I agree.
I rethought this after reading my post. No software can't be free in this
sense, and neither can speech.
When one refers to free speech, it is nonsense to think of the speech as free.
It is the speaker who is free. The speech cannot be free. It has no will of
its own to encumber.
In the same sense, the speaker cannot, by his or her self, be free. The
speaker's freedom derives from a social pact with the community in which the
speaker acts. It is that community that permits the speaker's freedom.
Likewise, software cannot be free because it has no will of its own. It is
the community that endows the freedom to recipients -- listeners in the free
speech metaphor -- to use the software as they please.
Do I think any of this is really important? Mostly not. I just hate it when
windbags, like Stallman, try to impose a reality with flawed intellectual
foundations. So often such self espousing proponents of freedom tend to
spend a lot of time telling others what they should or should not do.
PGP fingerprint: 52A4 B10C AA73 096F A661 92D2 3B65 8EAC ACC5 BA7A
The attachment - signature.asc - is my electronic signature; no need for
alarm. Info @
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 309 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the kubuntu-users