Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Les Mikesell]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
>> I can't advocate it because I believe its terms are immoral.
> 
> That's rich! Made my day already :)

Aside from the moral issue of demanding that other people give up 
choices of terms on their own contributions, consider the sheer bulk of 
what it prohibits compared to what it allows:
   It permits the permutation of all combinations of all GPL-encumbered 
code.
   It prohibits the permutation of all combinations of GPL-encumbered 
code with any that cannot be GPL-encumbered.
    As long as there is any code with non-GPL terms, the latter set is 
obviously larger.

Or, if you are familiar with software development, you might agree that 
about 10% of the time/effort goes into the initial implementation of a 
new program and 90% goes into testing, debugging, and subsequent 
maintenance.  So in a typical GPL case, the person who does that initial 
10% limits the choices of how the subsequent 90% can be done.  It's just 
wrong any way you look at it.


>>>>> You seem to consider "sharing" proprietary software is sharing. I think
>>>>> that's wrong since to me it is not sharing but, instead, gaining control.
>>>> No, I think proprietary software is reasonable
>>> I think this wrap ups very well all your argument. You start from a
>>> premise that I fundamentally reject as absurd, and from the absurd
>>> anything can be deduced.
>> Proprietary works are a side issue here as I am more concerned about the  
>> restrictions against combinations with MPL, CDDL, orginal BSD and other  
>> less resticted licenses, but do you think it is reasonable to require  
>> payment for your work in any field?  And if so, how is creating software  
>> different from other work?
> 
> To require payment for my work? Absolutely. Now how do you define
> payment? I can see many forms of payment:
>   * cash
>   * self satisfaction
>   * benemerity
>   * gratefulness
>   * ...
> 
> And I fully support that people develop GPL'ed software for hire.

That's possible but except in unlikely circumstances, one customer must 
pay the full cost of development.  There is no model for fair 
distribution of development cost among a large set of users since the 
GPL permits the first customer to give copies away freely.

>>>> but BSD, MIT, MPL, CDDL,   Apache, and similar less restricted 
>>>> licenses are about sharing.  GPL is about taking away other people's 
>>>> choices.
>>> How can something that isn't there be taken away? The GNU GPL adds to
>>> people's choices. The default is no choice at all.
>> The GPL is no different than a proprietary license in that respect.
> 
> Now I am *sure* you are trolling.

A proprietary license gives some rights that you don't have without it; 
the GPL gives you some rights you don't have without accepting it.  No 
difference in that respect.  But a proprietary license rarely demands 
that you place restrictions on how other people can create new things 
and share them.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com