advertisement

Article:
  Why Human Rights Requires Free Software
Subject:   Human rights require truly free software, not the FSF's "Free" (Not!) software
Date:   2002-10-12 14:39:59
From:   brettglass
In this essay, Andy Oram uses the term "Free Software" -- with initial caps -- implying that code encumbered by the FSF's anti-commercial "GNU General Public License" is necessary to human rights efforts.


Nothing could be further from the case. The GPL, with its "poison pill" provisions, hurts the development of technology businesses in developing nations by preventing them from creating, valuable innovations that improve upon existing works. For this reason, GPLed software should not be used in such efforts. Instead, they should insist upon using use software which is truly free and unencmumbered -- such as that which is in the public domain or licensed under the MIT, BSD, or Apache licenses. Otherwise, the GPL's agenda -- to undermine business and forestall any chance of good jobs for programmers -- will hurt the very countries that human rights workers are attempting to help. The GPL deprives programmers of rights, and therefore it is inappropriate for human rights workers to use it or software under which it is licensed.
Main Topics Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

  • Another tragic error...
    2002-10-13 13:29:16  brettglass [Reply | View]

    ...is the advertisement for the book "Free as in Freedom" -- the tract of propaganda which tells a highly inaccurate history of Stallman's life and reiterates Stallman's many lies -- in the margin of the essay. Andy, you should know better than anyone that GPLed software is in no way "free."
  • John W. Adams photo Brett, your objection is pointless
    2002-10-12 17:50:13  John W. Adams | O'Reilly Blogger [Reply | View]

    Your objection is to the use of the GPL in commercial software.

    Andy Oram's entire article is about non-commercial software for human rights workers.

    Thus, your objection is pointless.

    Further, every license restricts the rights of those who accept it. For this reason, your final sentence (which finally gets around to the issue at hand) does not reach a valid conclusion.