iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them

[Patrick Coskren]

On Monday, July 02, 2007, at 11:00PM, "LuKreme" <kremels at kreme.com> wrote:

>It's because with the GPL it is the CODE that is free, with the BSD/ 
>MIT licenses it is the CODER who is free. The GPL is designed to  
>ensure that the code is always free once designated as free.  It's  
>the only license that does that.  It also ensures that changes tot he  
>code are also FREE and freely available.
>
>It's a huge difference.  Personally, I think I prefer free CODE to  
>free CODERS.

That's the crux of the issue right there.  It's a misuse of the word "free".  "Freedom", assuming we don't mean "free as in beer", is the ability to make choices.  Only a human can be free.  Code cannot be free.  Code *can* be kept freely usable (note the passive), or free-as-in-beer, but only by restricting the freedom of other people to use it.  GPL says, "you can use my code, but only in the way I say you can".

And that's *fine*.  To repeat my position: I've got no problem with the GPL per se.  If people write code, they can release it under any license they want, including a restrictive one that ensures the code remains freely usable and free-as-in-beer.  Where I get annoyed is when they pretend this is about "freedom" the abstract concept, which it simply is not.  The GPL is an open source license, but it is not, in any way, about freedom.  I wish they'd get off their damned high-horse about it.

-Patrick