I’ve been struggling to come up with words to describe my frustrations with the definition of free software and how it ignores some of the nastiest behaviours of corporations.
Stuff like EEE, repositories that are technically free but owned by a corporation and too big to fork (chromium), and other hazier real life conditions. Could there be a “free software but dialectical” definition that would be more useful?
care to explain what you mean?
richard stallman may disingenously call the copyleft licensing as “idealist pragmatism” but it has nothing of idealism. It is a materialistic approach through and through, they studied the current intellectual property laws and designed the copyleft license to use intellectual property laws for their goals!
open source =/= free software, richard stallman extensively wrote about this. i think you may be confusing open source with free software.
I find that the classic “copyright wars”, de Raadt vs Stallman/ BSD vs GPL arguments about freedom are really analogous to idealism vs materialism.
“Ours is the most Free”, the idealists preach. “You can take our stuff and close it and sell it if you like! Yours carries authoritarian restrictions!”.
And this is true, but those restrictions insist on the spread of freedom, in that you’re forced to grant others the same freedom you enjoyed.
Look at how Microsoft took a lot of BSD code and profited from it, giving nothing back. Where is BSD now and where’s GNU/Linux?
Often we just need to accept the paradox that sometimes freedom must be imposed and that maximalist, idealist freedom includes the freedom to exploit others and limit the fruits of their “freedom”.
This is 100% correct, and why no one should be using “permissive” / soft / weak copyleft licenses. All they do is permit corporations to take your work, extend it and then close it off, under liberal notions of freedom.
