> Could you explain how Stallman is a "software dictator", or how his own version of freedom comes at the "expense of their freedom"?
Richard Stallman believes in the freedom of software, not the freedom of individuals. The GPL ensures that software is always free, by restricting what you as an individual can do with it. To him software being free in more important than a persons freedom. The BSD/MIT/ISC licenses give full freedom to people, including letting people make the software non-free, that is the freedom of choice.
I personally believe in the freedom of people. I believe people should be able to make their own choices, even if I disagree with them. That to me is true freedom. Richard Stallman believes that everyone should do things his way, that people should not be allowed to choose to do things differently. To me that is a form of fascism (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fascism).
> Richard Stallman believes in the freedom of software, not the freedom of individuals.
Stallman believes in freedom of indivisuals, _including_ the freedom of individuals down the stream. The BSD increases only your (egoistic) "freedom" to cut off other people from water supply, while decreasing everybody elses freedom to get to the water source, so it maximizes only one single peak of freedom, while everybody else loses. The GPL levels the access, it maximizes the total amount of freedom available in the ecosystem.
> That to me is true freedom.
According to that logic, a democracy is "unfree" because you are not allowed to turn it into a dictatorship, which is the "true freedom" then.
"Stallman believes in freedom of indivisuals, _including_ the freedom of individuals down the stream. The BSD increases only your (egoistic) "freedom" to cut off other people from water supply, while decreasing everybody elses freedom to get to the water source"
This isn't true. If I make changes to an app and don't release the changes, the only think you don't get is my changes. The water source is still available for all.
"so it maximizes only one single peak of freedom, while everybody else loses. The GPL levels the access, it maximizes the total amount of freedom available in the ecosystem."
If the GNU were truly free you wouldn't see so many GNU violators being taken to court. The GNU is about as free a s copyright. If you consider that freedom, then yes, it's free.
I would say just don't use GNU software if you don't believe in the licensing, but it's not that easy. The GNU is like a bomb about to explode. As a business owner, if one of your employees uses any GNU software in a commercial app and you have any sort of success, it could be the end of your business if you are forced to release the source. Why? Because someone can and will compile and release it for free, circumventing all of your commercial licensing.
Making software non-free is not something an individual does with software. It is something an individual does to other individuals.
You can do whatever you want with free software. You just can't prevent me from doing the same thing.
Similarly, you might describe freedom of the press as a form of fascism - in a land with freedom of the press, you lose the "freedom" to censor my newspaper.
The way you describe freedom is the way some oppressive regimes start, an individual believes their way is the right way, others will benefit from their way, so their way is forced on people.
With freedom of the press, the press has the freedom to choose what they publish. You as an individual have the freedom to choose not to read what they publish. You don't have the freedom to restrict what or how they publish, that is their choice.
With software licenses the copyright holder has the freedom to pick a license and publish their work how they choose. With BSD-like licenses the receiver of the software also has the freedom to pick a license and re-publish the work as they choose. With the GPL the receiver of the software loses the freedom to choose what they do with it, the copyright holder is imposing their will and beliefs on someone else. With the BSD License people have choice, including the choice to impose their will, but that choice is theirs.
Instead of the press, I think it might be clearer if you think about it as drugs or alcohol. You as an individual have the freedom to choose to sit in your home and get drunk. That is your choice. You do not have the freedom to get in a fight while drunk, or get in a car and drive drunk. Because when you do those things you take away the freedom of choice of others, you impose your will, you take away their right not to get hit.
It's about freedom of choice. The choice of an individual lies with that individual, with freedom of choice you do not get to restrict the choice of others.
You as an individual have the freedom to choose to sit in your home and get drunk. That is your choice.
I like your drugs and alchohol analogy.
With free software, you as an individual have the freedom to do whatever you want with it in your home. That is your choice. You do not have the freedom to prevent others from modifying or reproducing it. Because when you do those things you take away the freedom of choice of others, you impose your will, you take away their right to modify and reproduce the software.
The point you seem to be missing is that licensing software is not something you do to the software. It's something you do to other people.
You make an excellent point. I believe in free software, but I choose not to impose those beliefs on others.
I think there are times when freedom needs to be enforced through law, as the GPL does, because the consequences of losing the freedom is too great (injury or death included). The GPL was and still is important, it helped popularize the free software movement. Twenty years ago the GPL might have been required, maybe the software landscape was such that non-GPL free software would not succeed. I think now, in 2012, it is not required for most projects. I will concede there are projects where it is still important.
If you look at some of the most successful and thriving open source projects you'll see they succeed without laws enforcing their freedom. Things like Apache httpd, nginx, Hadoop, Chromium, and X.org. People and companies contribute to them even though they are not forced to.
If think there comes a time when societies and ecosystems no longer need such strong enforcement of freedoms, and freedom is actually increased by not forcing freedom.
A software license is a form of contract that individuals are free to accept or not. If you disagree with the contract, you are free not to use the software.
Here's another analogy. If I build a restaurant and want it to be non-smoking, I'm not restricting your freedom. You are free not to come to my restaurant.
I knew from the fact that the link title contained the word "Stallman" that it'd get Godwinned. Congratulations.
Do you honestly believe that you can separate what you describe as "freedom of software" from "freedom of individuals"? Does DRM or Tivoization serve the freedom of individuals? Does not being able to modify your computer make you more free?
No. Stallman do care about the freedom of the people. The problem is, he focuses almost entirely on negative freedom[1]. If one restricts oneself to Free Software, he can do whatever he wants with it (except restricting others' freedom, which is precisely what negative freedom is about). But there are additional degrees of liberty[2] to be gained if you also use proprietary software from time to time. Some capabilities just aren't in the realm of free software (the latest fashionable computer game, some device drivers, the Raspberry Pi —it uses some proprietary code).
Now, note that even someone very much aware of positive liberty could act the same way Stallman is acting. This is because we'd all be more capable if all software were free.[3] The only way to do that is stop using and making proprietary software. The problem with that is that it requires a personal sacrifice. At the consumer end, it means not enjoying some software (the proprietary ones). At the producer end, it means making less money.
In other words, we have a prisoner's dilemma[4]. Stallman is currently cooperating, and is urging everyone else to do the same. The GPL by the way is consistent with this: to some extent, it forces you to cooperate. You seem to think this is unacceptable. You'd prefer to be able to defect. But then I ask you: how do you justify this ? If you plan to cooperate, you don't need the freedom to defect. If you plan to defect, what is your moral basis for making the world a slightly worse place ?
This works even if we do not talk about you. If you think people should cooperate, why give them the freedom to defect ? If you let them defect (and they do defect), it again makes the world a slightly worse place. How would you justify this? (Note: my own moral alarm went off when I wrote that last paragraph. I suppose yours have as well. Just remember that this is probably a false positive, for the GPL actually is a give & take licence. Something like a clever Timeless Decision Theory[5] agent that will cooperate if and only if it knows you will cooperate if and only if you know it will cooperate if… infinite recursion resolved by symmetrical information —the text is laid out for all to see.)
[3]: This point is central. If you don't believe it, the rest of my argument doesn't work. That's why if anyone has reasons to reject it, I'd like to know about it (links to high walls of text are okay).
