[OT] re: freedom semantics ('What's "Linking" under the GPL?')

Craig Latta Craig.Latta at NetJam.ORG
Fri Nov 2 05:48:52 UTC 2001


	The thing I always found odd about "free software" dogma was that very
phrase. I would think that freedom of *people* is what's important, not
of software. The word "free", when applied to artifacts, just seems to
be too strongly associated with price and the artifact itself to be a
useful cue for any sort of human liberty. I think "open source" was an
improvement.

	I think the FSF's notion of transitively preserving recipients' rights
to create derived works is compelling, but words like "free" and
"freedom" are too broad to describe it. They want to support a specific
liberty, it seems. At the same time, calling the idea "viral" always
sounds unconstructively derogatory to me.

	It'd be nice to orient the discussion toward the people involved, or at
least the activity in which they're engaged, rather than the artifacts
they create. I always liked the term "copyleft" ("the right to copy is
left"). It induces the audience, via a novel word, to consider the
people to whom the right to copy is left, and why, instead of invoking a
broad and familiar concept in an unfamiliar way. And it seems more
evocative of the attributes its opponents don't like. :)


-C

--
Craig Latta
composer and computer scientist
craig.latta at netjam.org
www.netjam.org
crl at watson.ibm.com
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list