Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 14, 9:02 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <ab78bcb6-f07c-4d6c-b6aa-961f4ff59... at i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Patrick
>
>
>
> Maupin wrote:
> > On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
> > wrote:
>
> >> In message
> >> <2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-dcba0dc93... at a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> >>> On May 13, 10:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> >>> <l... at geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> >> >> In message <mailman.142.1273767256.32709.python-l... at python.org>, Ed
> >> >> Keith wrote:
>
> >>>>> The claim is being made that [the GPL] restricts freedom.
>
> >>>> What about the “freedom” to restrict other people’s freedom? Should
> >>>> that be restricted or not?
>
> >>> It's interesting that some people don't like the comparison of the
> >>> Free Software movement to a religion, yet the main argument of the
> >>> movement, and the deliberate co-opting of words like "Free" and "Free
> >>> Software" ...
>
> >> Haven’t you “co-opted” those words yourself?
>
> > Only in response.
>
> So it’s bad when others do it, but not when you do it?

I don't claim to have the vision that gave me the last word on
freedom, complete with the overarching power to enumerate all the
necessary freedoms on heaven and earth.  But even if I accept
Stallman's definitions of "freedom" it is apparently heretical of me
to point out that under other licenses, the original recipient of a
piece of software (for example, anybody who downloads any of my
software direct from google code) enjoys all four of the freedoms
relative to that particular piece of software, and has the additional
freedom of not having to worry too much about compliance.

BTW, RMS apparently stole "4 freedoms" from FDR.  But don't tell
anybody.

Regards,
Pat