GPL 3 As Bonfire of the Vanities

morganew writes "Jonathan Zuck has written a CNET Op-ed stating that the GPL 3 is about returning the flock to the faith, and is reminiscent of Savonarola's 'Bonfire of the Vanities', urging true believers to burn things that took their eyes off God. From Article: 'The commercial humanists such as Lawrence Lessig with his Creative Commons initiative have turned away from the Old Testament, and the GPL 3.0 license is a call to the faithful to reject these vanities'. Given the reaction by Linus Torvalds and nearly all the OSS business community to the GPL 3, are we going to see a break in the church?"

Full Disclosure

[gowen (141411)]

When reading any socio-political article, be sure you know who the author works for [wikipedia.org].

Re:Full Disclosure

[gowen (141411)]

Or do we have to throw some "Ad Hominem" at him?

It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion, any more than it's ad hominem to point out that the White House press secretary's statements may be phrased in such a way to reflect well on the President.

Re:Full Disclosure

[Doctor Faustus (127273)]

It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion
Just so long as you're not going on to say that what that person's saying should be ignored because of it. He could still be right, even if he's saying something in his employer's best interest.

Besides, in this case, he appears to be arguing against something that would benefit Microsoft.

Re:Full Disclosure

[Chmarr (18662)]

Yes, it does matter, because *I* want to know *WHO* is making the opinion, and what agenda might be satisfied by publishing the opinion. This way, I can decide which elements I can reasonably trust on faith, and which elements may have ulterior motives for pomulgating.

Re:Full Disclosure

[gowen (141411)]

Does it matter if he got paid for his opinion?

Of course it bloody matters.

It doesn't necessarily invalidate his opinion (and I never said it did -- that would be argument ad hominem) but it should cast a certain amount of doubt as to whether he reached those opinions through research, or is just parroting his employers opinions.

Who would you trust more : a NASA scientist who warned you about global warning, or an Exxon scientist who told you that global warming was a myth? Why?

Tell me : if you were on trial, would you like the witnesses against you to have been paid by the prosecution?

Here's what you did say

[GuloGulo (959533)]

It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion

Which is factually incorrect. That is ad hominem. Whether he was paid or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of his statements.

You can check the accurracy of his statements and decide if they are correct. The source of funding doesn't change this.

I realize yours is a widely held belief, but it's wrong.

Re:Here's what you did say

[Frymaster (171343)]

That is ad hominem. Whether he was paid or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of his statements.
You can check the accurracy of his statements and decide if they are correct.

correct. attempting to invalidate someone's statements by pointing out they have been paid to make them is ad hominem. just because a person, in a worst case scenario, makes a cynical statement merely for personal profit has absolutely no bearing on the truth of that statement whatsoever.

now, having said that, i went and read the article and have come to the conclusion that the real purpotrator of fallicies in this thread is Jonathan Zuck himself. the entire rambling piece is little more than a bag of poor analogies propped up as straw men, miscontextualized quotes and mild ad hominem. this is a gross exercise in rhetoric that brings approprixmately zero new insight to discussion about the future of the gpl.

Re:Here's what you did say

[slagell (959298)]

Ah, if only every argument was a purely deductive proof that we could analyze as such. Then a person's bias would have little effect on the efficay of their arguments. However, there are 2 major problems. First, most arguments only contain bits of induction in a much larger argument that has deductive and inductive parts (usually some crap too). Instead of "proving" anything, they person making the argument will supply a bunch of evidence. Bias often causes people to highlight the "evidence" in their favor, and brush aside evidence not in their favor. So when you hear an argument from a person with a strong agenda, you really should stop to think about what counter evidence has been overlooked or brushed aside. The second problem affects even the purely deductive kind of argument that might bring Aristotle himself to orgasm. This is that we must still evaluate the premises of any argument, and decide if they are reasonable. Not knowing everything in the universe, people really on expert opinion in many cases to determine whether these premises are sound. So credability becomes very important. Thus, in addition to what is being said, who is saying it does matter. The court system certainly recognizes this with the use of "expert witnesses". You can never logically just brush something off as false because it was said by a certain person, just as being hypocritical doesn't make you wrong. But unless the argument made is a 100% deductive proof with very simple assumptions, then the "who" as well as the "what" is important in evaluating the argument.

Re:And you misunderstand the definition

[Taevin (850923)]

According to your own link:
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something objectionable about A,
3. therefore claim B is false.

You'll notice that gowen has not made an argumentum ad hominem because he has not made an argument of that form. He has only said parts 1 and 2 of the above form. Never did he say "Mr. Zuck made this claim but he received money from ACT, therefore what he said is wrong."

If I may further direct to you to the strangely titled "Validity" section of the wiki link:

"Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy."

Again: "Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility..." That is all you can 'accuse' gowen of doing. All he did was point out who the author works for so that you can decide for yourself if the author or his employer has any credibility. Again, only to "doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy." gowen has not made any comment doubting the validity of Zuck's deduction. Hell, unless I've missed one of his posts, he hasn't made any comment on the deduction at all.

If you want to say that perhaps it was unnecessary to bring up the author's employer, fine. If you want to say that perhaps it is misleading or shady or some other subjective description, fine. But it is not an argumentum ad hominem.

Re:And you misunderstand the definition

[TXG1112 (456055)]

The world is not a Greek forum, strict logic is not always the most useful view of the world.
From that wikipedia article you enjoy linking so much:

Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

While the fact that someone is being paid to hold an opinion does not in fact affect the validity of that opinion, anyone who takes that opinion at face value is an idiot. What it affects is how thoroughly one should verify the validity of that opinion. Gowen is making a rational case to thoroughly verify the opinion, not attacking the opinion itself. One is common sense, the other is Ad Hom. If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.

Re:And you misunderstand the definition

[Lochin Rabbar (577821)]

"Gowen has committed ad hominem, regardless of his position on the author's statements. They are verifiable or they are not."

He may have committed ad hominem, but he hasn't committed a fallacy. Ad hominem is only a fallacy in deductive reasoning which deals in absolutes. However Gowen only invites us to hypothesise that the article is tainted not to regard it as a certainty. That is abductive rather than deductive logic, and in the real world abductive logic is usually a more useful tool than deduction. Given the number of observations of those funded by MS making bogus statements about the GPL, and the puacity of truthful statements on any subject from such sources it is reasonable to infer there is rule that such sources are tainted.

One only needs to glance at the article to see that in this case that the hypothesis is not disproven. This gives further weight to the theory that any source funded by MS is untrustworthy.

Since none of us have the time nor ability to independently verify every source of information out there only a fool would dismiss the utility of sifting information according to the likely veracity of its source.

Re:No, it doesn't

[Dashing Leech (688077)]

"You must judge the accuracy of the statements based on their accuracy alone."

Am I the only one who sees that this whole string of arguments is about 2 different things? Well, it looks like a few people have tried to point it out.

It is absolutely 100% correct that the accuracy of a statement has nothing to do with whether someone was paid to say it or not. Attacking the messenger or their intentions is indeed ad hominem. But that's not what the other side of the argument is here.

If you only have the statement, you don't know it's accuracy. You have absolutely nothing to judge it on with respect to "truth data". The issue here isn't the accuracy of the statement because you can't check it. The issue here is the confidence in the accuracy of the statement with no available "truth data". If it is someone with a background in presenting objective information, there is more confidence that their statements are accurate than someone who clearly has a self-interest in being subjective.

Confidence and likelihood are statistical tools and are useful for a best guess. There is no such thing as an ad hominen attack on confidence. Likelihood and confidence a part of reasoning, but it is not closed form like pure deductive reasoning.

More accurately, it would be "Poisoning the Well".

[khasim (1285)]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html [fallacyfiles.org]

"My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." (Circumstantial)

This calls his integrity into question because of his employment circumstances.

Re:More accurately, it would be "Poisoning the Wel

[gowen (141411)]

This calls his integrity into question because of his employment circumstances.

I'm sorry, but the man who masterminded [sourcewatch.org] the Microsoft Anti-trust astroturfing campaign [sourcewatch.org] is on fairly shaky ground, integrity wise.

And besides, I didn't call his integrity into question. I merely provided additional information with which interested readers could make up their own minds. Additional information is never a bad thing.

Attack of the killer motives

[rumblin'rabbit (711865)]

It is all the rage these days to attack a person's motives rather than their arguments. I wonder sometimes if it's due to the prevalence of postmodernism in the universities, where subjectivity (e.g., "whose truth?") reigns supreme.

It's sad and intellectually lazy.

Re:Attack of the killer motives

[gowen (141411)]

That would be a valid point if the author had constructed a coherent, fact-based argument. But in fact, the article is little more than a list of unsupported assertions about other peoples motives.

And the natural reaction to such an article is to ask "Why would someone write such a thing?"

And the answer is invariably the same : "Money".

Re:Full Disclosure

[HardCase (14757)]

Why? Do his arguments not stand on their own? Or do we have to throw some "Ad Hominem" at him?

Grain of salt, baby...grain of salt.

Re:Full Disclosure

[Austerity Empowers (669817)]

You can't read the article and not wonder who paid for it, although it does say so at the bottom. It is propoganda intended to divide, not a reasoned argument on a controversial topic. His article compares all open source to some extremist cult, and holds Stallman out as the leader of the next inquisition against common sense, with even such revolutionaries as Torvald's saying "he's gone too far". There is no argument, very few facts, and a whole lot of bizarre analogy. Who he works for is perhaps more important than what he says. Clearly he's having a problem and wishes to divide and conquer. Knowing that, we can now realize that there is no war between the GPLv2 and GPLv3. I think Linus himself said while the GPLv3 isn't for him, and isn't for his kernel, it has value on other applications (he gave examples, I don't recall what). That's actually a rational position for anyone who wants to write software and keep it free. Licenses are tools, choose the best tool for your job.

Huh?

[Moby Cock (771358)]

a break in the church?

I thought it was a Bazaar.

Well...

[j0nkatz (315168)]

I like Microsoft so I must be going to hell in a handbasket.

Are we going to see a break in the church?

[by Anonymous Coward]

GPL 3: "I've created OSS Lutherans!"

It's technology, for Pete's sakes

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that with every new or good thing someone should come, make a "cause" out of it, preferably a religion or something equally mindless, based on faith and not reason, and then wave banners of the newfound dogma in our faces while stuffing his proverbial coffers with capital.

I say its technology, and any selfrighteous sermonizing jackass that wants to make religious wars based on it can go and do it with himself, for all I care.

Re:It's technology, for Pete's sakes

[Andy_R (114137)]

I'd say it's social engineering, or possibly economics, not technology. There isn't much in the GPL that could not be applied to computing 30 years ago, or collaborative text authorship 100 years ago.

The GPL issue is possibly the first really large-scale one that the computer geek community has to address that is not simply technology-led, it's led by ideology and/or conscience.

Wow

[endrue (927487)]

That has got to be the most strangled and embarrasing analogy I have ever heard. It makes me feel all dirty - like I'm in some kind of cult. Lighten up!

Re:Wow

[tpgp (48001)]

Yup - Mr Zuck is the one with religious fervour.

Consider this quote of his: [cfif.org]

ZUCK: Sure. ACT is an IT industry trade association based in Washington, D.C. It represents mostly small- and medium-sized information technology companies and their interests in Washington. So, we lobby on their behalf to prevent over-regulation of the industry; we fight both here and abroad for intellectual property protection;

Errr right, fight against over-regulation.... with ip regulation?

He also shows no understanding of the i [com.com]

Above religion?

[bubulubugoth (896803)]

Aren`t we, technology advocates, above this kind of faithfull belive, and use more rational tougths and critical tougths?

I sure know that, sometimes, only very few sometimes, almost never, we the "techs" tend to be fanatics...

But this is getting creepy, GPL3 is just a license, to protect information, over one simple filosophical belive: Free of information.

Hell, reading about flocks, faith, damn... what`s next? To adore the holy chip of Intel?

Re:Above religion?

[Luscious868 (679143)]

Nope. Just look at the comments in any article about Google or Appple.

MOD PARENT DOWN!!!

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Parent post is critical of Google and Apple!

Reasoning from analogies

[hey! (33014)]

Reasoning from analogies is like tying your shoes with laces made of butter.

What is the problem?!

[ajs318 (655362)]

We believe that every user of software has four basic rights: the right to ENJOY the software, the right to STUDY how the software works, the right to SHARE the software with others and the right to ADAPT the software to their needs. We believe that these rights spring directly from the existence of software, are fundamental and can never be signed away.

THE RIGHT TO ENJOY

We believe that everyone has the right to use software that they have legitimately acquired, for any purpose: it is for the user to determine whether it is suitable for a particular application. If the supplier of a program were somehow unfairly to impose their will upon the user, perhaps by stipulating that the program should not be used for certain purposes, that would constitute an act of violence.

THE RIGHT TO STUDY

We believe that every user of a program has the right to study how that program works. If the user of a program wishes to replicate a particular piece of functionality from that program, they have the right to examine the program in order to determine how the functionality is performed. Nobody should be forced to re-invent the wheel. The supplier of a program does not have the right to keep secret from any rightful user how the program works: by allowing someone else to use the program, they have invited that person in on the secret.

If the creator of a process wishes to keep secret the details of a process, then that is their prerogative. Effectively, they are providing a service: a customer supplies the materials; the provider of the service takes them away, does something secret, and later returns a finished product to the customer. The customer has certain rights in respect of the transaction, including the right to decline the transaction altogether based upon the level of secrecy expected by the supplier. Where the right to study a program is denied, the user {customer} is expected to provide the supplier with not just the raw materials {input to the program}, but also the resources to carry out the process {computer time and disk space}. This diminishes the quid pro quo, and so is potentially an unfair transaction.

Access to the source code is highly desirable in the exercise of this right.

THE RIGHT TO SHARE

We believe that all the fruits of all human endeavour properly belong to all of humankind.

Software can be shared without being diminished by the act of sharing: if I give a copy of a program to my neighbour, I still have a copy. {Of course, I no longer have the exclusive use of that software. This exclusivity is a form of artificial scarcity.} Nobody has the right to impose their will on my neighbour and say that they should not use a particular program: to do so would be a form of violence.

THE RIGHT TO ADAPT

We believe that every user of a program has the right to adapt that program to their own needs. Nobody should be forced to adapt their method of working to suit the way that someone else believes that the job should be done that would constitute unfairly imposing one's will on another, which is a form of violence.

Access to the source code is highly desirable in the exercise of this right.

DELEGATION OF RIGHTS

We further believe that any user who is not skilled in the art of computer programming, or who simply desires to delegate the task to another, has the right to employ a competent programmer [2] of their choice and whom they trust, to assist them in the exercise of their rights to enjoy, study, share and adapt computer software; and that every competent programmer has the right to run a business based on providing such services in a free market. These services might include independent appraisal of the program to determine its suitability for a particular application {which is contingent upon the right to study}; modification to tailor the program to the customer's working

Re:What is the problem?!

[fossa (212602)]

I find your arguments distrubing. You say he does not have the "right" to ask for part of your paycheck. Nor does he have the "right" to copy "your" software. I say the former is very different from the latter. In the latter case, you are asking him to give up some of his freedom: the freedom to copy. His copying does not directly affect you in any way. In the former case, he is asking something of you that does directly affect you. You have no right to demand that others limit their freedom for the mere claim that you "own" the "right" to copy. Now, it so happens that we as a society have decided that allowing you to do so temporarily will be beneficial for the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts. But there is nothing inherent that says you should be able to limit his freedom in this way as his actions do not affect you. So, please, throw out the "I own it so he can't copy it" argument. Instead, argue that society should agree to prevent him fom copying. And it better have a damn good reason to do so.

Reformation?

[opencity (582224)]

I like the religious schism analogy whether or not it's accurate. Does that make Microsoft the Ottoman Empire? Apple?

Troll...

[srmq (123358)]

The article is clearly a troll. If the author had at least read the proposed draft of the GPLv3, he would have seen that in fact it brings more compatibility with the "pragmatism-driven" OSS world, as it will make possible to combine gplv3 works with software released under OSS licenses that are currently incompatible, like the Apache 2.0 and the Eclipse licence.

Not troll but astroturfer

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

If the author had at least read the proposed draft of the GPLv3

How can you be so naive? He DID read it. He was just paid to attack Stallman, since the GPL doesn't benefit Microsoft at all. Please, portraying Stallman as some kind of fundamentalist warlock who loves to burn books of art and science? Sheesh, that's falling low.

At least CNET had the decency now to say who he works for at the bottom of the article.

Freedom to Create Free Software is Good

[digitaldc (879047)]

Enter Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican priest, who came to power in Florence in 1494. He viewed all of this "humanism" as vanity, turning people's heads away from the word of God and true religion. He took a very severe stand against the new scholarship, culminating in a series of bonfires in the town square, where many great works of art and science were lost. These fires have come to be known as the "Bonfire of the Vanities."
Like Savonarola, Richard Stallman takes a similarly religious stance on software development, rather than a practical one. For Stallman, the concept that software be "free, as in freedom" is the only concern in the creation of software.

At first, I was thinking that Stallman, was the opposite of someone like Savonarola, since he encourages 'freedom' in software creation and not adhering to strict rules or religion. And freedom should include the freedom to create any software you like, totally free or hybrid - though this is not exactly what Stallman envisioned. But of course, all this 'freedom' could lead to something altogether different - 'not free' code and this could not be named 'public.'

I do not see the point of this person's article, except to stir up bad feelings against Stallman. Maybe since the guy works for the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT), he has an agenda to push - creating disdain for the concept of free software? ACT doesn't like OpenOffice, so they probably do not like Stallman either.

I think the point is that Stallman is a fanatic

[blueZ3 (744446)]

like Savonarola.

I'm not against free software; I use and enjoy an number of free and open source apps. Heck, I've even contributed to the documentation efforts of some projects of this type. I suppose I support, in a general way, the four freedoms in the parent article, though calling software restrictions "violence" is, IMO adolescent.

But I'm opposed on principle to any fanaticism, whether it be in favor of free software or Microsoft products. The type of rabid dogmatism propounded by Stallman is the enem

Religious debate?

[truthsearch (249536)]

Many in the commercial software community call open vs. closed source a religious debate. They argue they're on the pragmatic side. The open source community often tries to portray their side as practical, not idealistic. Framing this in religious tones in not going to help. It only stokes the fires and brings this article's author more readers. I see this as just media sensationalism with some facts thrown in.

Re:Religious debate?

[qwijibo (101731)]

It's not a completely unfair comparison. There are people on both sides whose beliefs are so strong that they refuse to consider the other side's perspective. The other side are considered heretics because they do not subscribe to The One True Way. In the end, the only concern is with winning converts to your belief system, regardless of how right your belief system is.

For example, GPL is touted as the ultimate in code freedom, but it's really about pushing a particular agenda. It's a constructive agend

Re:Religious debate?

[ZombieRoboNinja (905329)]

I dunno, I think the author is actually fairly clear when you RTFA. The open-source guys are the liberal rennaissance types in his analogy, and Stallman is the crazy book-burner who's trying to shut them down.

It makes some sense to me. Many programmers and companies see open source as an appealing solution for profit-driven and nonprofit projects alike. IBM, Sun, and Google, for example, all see some potential financial gain in promoting a strong open-source community. The advantages of open source include broader standards, "many eyes" to help catch bugs and security flaws, and the possibility of programmers from competing companies working together towards a mutual goal.

"Free-source" guys like Stallman don't seem to like this so much. They seem to think of their software as a crusade, and consider it perfectly justified to try to strong-arm people into abandoning DRM, patents, and of course copyright for their software. Stallman would undoubtably love it if there simply WAS no protection for any kind of "intellectual property." But that makes him a bit impractical, IMO, since the profit motive is the only reason a LOT of good programs get made. (Not to mention art, music, movies, books...)

In other words, Stallman is trying to tear down the burgeoning open source/corporate alliances on ideological grounds, and I don't think the article writer is totally off base in his analogy. Although of course he's hyperbolizing quite a bit.

So what are its real legal effects?

[jc42 (318812)]

I've read all sorts of contradictory stuff about GPL 3, and they can't possibly all be true. It'd be nice to read a calm, clear explanation of what it really does, and how it's different from earlier versions.

I suppose that such an explanation should go over all the various FUD stuff and explain why each specific claim is wrong (or partially right or whatever).

In any case, it seems that if I own the copyright on something, I should have the right to release it with extra permissions beyond the law's defaults. Much of the FUD seems to be based on the premise that there's something wrong with me giving away something that I own. What's so immoral, anti-social, or religious about giving someone a gift?

Re:So what are its real legal effects?

[giorgiofr (887762)]

What's so immoral, anti-social, or religious about giving someone a gift?

Nothing! There's nothing immoral in the BSD lic... oh wait...

Re:So what are its real legal effects?

[Todd Knarr (15451)]

If you want the straight dope, look at the draft GPL V3 language and accompanying commentary/elaborations [fsf.org].

I think the objection many GPL objectors have isn't that you're giving it away, but that you're demanding that they pay back in kind if they want to benefit in certain ways from what you gave away. They'd rather you gave them stuff without asking anything from them in return. They're certainly entitled to want stuff without any strings attached, but we aren't obligated to give it to them just because they want it.

So who is going to write the 97 theses?

[Senzei (791599)]

I only got to about four or so and quit. If anyone wants to pick up where I left off just say so and i'll post it.

Then again, maybe we should concentrate more on getting back to the point of OSS.

Crossroads

[Billosaur (927319)]

To meet the needs of the heterogeneous market, this community has focused many of its efforts on building bridges between open/free software and proprietary products. Under GPL 2, companies have found many ways to create these types of hybrid systems. Today, Linux distributions from Red Hat, Suse and others include many pieces of proprietary and nonfree code. But this "mixing" has not been without its detractors. For leading Linux users like TiVo and Adaptec, the ability to protect key intellectual property is essential. But this protection is a direct assault on Stallman's version of freedom and the need to share software with the community. How do you balance the promotional value of high-profile Linux implementations against the philosophical compromise?

It's the crux of the problem: how do we keep software development free and open, yet allow people to create systems/software that they can market and more importantly, protect, to allow for continued commerce. The web gets more tangled with each iteration and type of licensing, not to mention the whole patentability issue. Eventually this whole idea of intellectual property in software is going to cave in to the reality that you can't wall off code or the algorithms behind code. In the end, everything will have to be open source to be accessible, but allowances will have to made for commercial use of code.

The Schematic

[Himring (646324)]

In order to properly use this metaphore the following must be true:

1. A pre-reformer figured must be burned at the stake by Rome (John Huss):
2. A Luther figure must arise who, prior to converting to a 'reformed' faith beats himself with whips, sleeps on cold stone in discomfort and crawls over glass.
3. Post conversion, he nails a piece of paper to a castle-church door listing 99 problems he has with the establisment.
4. The peasants revolt in agreement with his claims, and he agrees to torture and kill them.


Oh, and finally, Chuck Norris causes the real break with a roundhouse kick....

What is the GPL3 Fight All About?

[tabdelgawad (590061)]

This is a real question to those who have spent more time thinking about this and have a better understanding. My impression was that RMS is trying to respond to the possibility, courtesy of DRM and 'Trusted Computing', that a company could take GPL software, make (and publish) modifications, then release a version that cannot be modified further and still run. This would transform GPL software to a 'Look But Don't Tinker' variety. After a while, for example, you wouldn't be able to meaningfully branch a project. Is this about right? If so, is the fight about this goal of GPL3 or the particular methods/language it uses?

One Gods

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Clearly GPL 1 is the "Old Testament": the original, not very popular. Settled down after an initial conversion onslaught into just a small community handing it down thru generations on conservative faith in the simplest expression of the "One License" inspiration.

GPL 2 is the "New Testament": hugely popular sequel, reforming the original and claiming its legacy. More complex, but more comprehensive to absorb adherents of other licenses. Taking over the world as the old "panoply of proprietary licenses" paradigm fades.

GPL 3 is the "Last Revelation": deriving from the first two licenses in succession, attempting to leverage the success of the second edition into total world domination among a much more diverse population. Impeded by continuing success of the second version.

This comparative license religion note brought to you by an atheist, into the public domain.

Separation of code and content

[RomulusNR (29439)]

GPL is for code, CC is for content. I don't see a schism there.

Begs the question of freedom versus pragmatism

[2901 (676028)]

The article casts Stallman as impractical. However the freedoms in the GPL are of practical importance. One might for example be using GPL software in a large organistion to get away from per seat licencing, using the freedom to share the software with multiple employees. If some "pragmatism" finds a way round GPL 2 so that you have to pay per seat for the link to the website that enables the software, that is not very practical for the users.

If you are going to do what the article does and merely assert that freedom is in opposition to practicality, you are saying nothing at all.

FSF stands up against Big Money and Big Brother!

[billybob2 (755512)]

Richard Stallman correctly predicted many of the ways in which Big Corporations and Big Brother will use DRM [eff.org] (also known as Digital Restrictions Management, Treacherous Computing, or Handcuffware) to enslave people. Just read the essay he wrote, titled "Can you trust your computer? [gnu.org]" and look at some of the recent [slashdot.org] Slashdot [slashdot.org] stories [slashdot.org] and you'll see that he's been all along.

I have nothing but respect for Stallman's courage to take on the powerful and wealthy interests that want to subjugate the populace. This is the time to show our gratitude for his uncompromising ideals by donating to the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org] (which Richard Stallman founded and leads) and to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation [eff.org].