Ubuntu is not free.

[Gary W. Swearingen]

"Christofer C. Bell" <christofer.c.bell at gmail.com> writes:

> Yes, and that's a mistaken interpretation.  The GNU Project has a very
> clear definition of what "Free" means when used in a "Free Software"
> context[1].

Clear as long as you can get it through your head that free(dom) does
not mean free(dom).  Rather like how you are free to yell "fire", but
not where courts have ruled you can't yell that (just about anywhere
people might hear you).  Except in the GNU world, RMS gets to set the
exceptions.  He's set it so that your freedom ends at the point you
want to make _your_ modifications not GPL-compatible, which is far
from free, IMO.

> This definition has nothing to do with the freedom to use or not use a
> given piece of software, but the freedom to modify software as you
> like and give your modifications to your neighbors (or to keep them to
> yourself).  The first freedom, the freedom to modify, implies that you
> are not free to restrict modifications by others to software you
> distribute (thereby denying those people the freedom to modify their
> software).

Craftily said.  But your freedom to publish _your_ modifications is
severely restricted.  You _must_ cross-license your modifications
under GPL-compatible terms, or not publish.  That's not freedom, IMO.
That's barter in IP.

A main goal behind the GPL is to "encourage" (to put it most politely)
developers to use the GPL by restricting their freedom to publish
their modifications.  It's not even just to encourage open source, if
you'll ask yourself why a BSD kernel may not link in a GPL'd driver.

I'm convinced that GNU stands for "Guild for a New Unix".  Those
outside the guild may not derive from their code and the power of
guild is used to "encourage" people into guild membership and
punish outsiders.  It seems to be a scheme that works, but I don't
like it any more than I like what I know of the old European guilds.

The one "freedom" the referenced page does not list: The freedom to
use the work of people who use your work.  This stems from RMS's and
others odd notion of "fairness" (or, really, unfairness) and differs
greatly from the more collegial notions of Science, which led
scientists (in the past, at least) to publish thier results and which
leads BSD and X developers to open their work to _really_ free
development by others.


> "I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford.  I
> trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."

Sorry to see you now starting a Partisan US Politics thread.  Next
time, please take these kinds of opinions elsewhere, thank you.

I trust Democrats to leave me with a deed to my property, but with
committees of "experts" giving me every freedom to do what I want with
my property except those they've decided I shouldn't have.  (Damn
Democrats in my county just told tens of thousands of land owners that
they can't do almost anything with 65% of their land.  No joke.)

I trust Republicans to be always slowing the Democratic march toward
de facto Socialism (where you get to hold a useless deed and which
probably should be called "neo-socialism").