[pp.int.general] cultural flatrate: PP position?

[Félix Robles]

Some freedoms come into conflict with other freedoms. For example, my
supposed freedom to kill you comes into conflict with your freedom to live.
In the same fashion, if you integrate free code into a privative/proprietary
software, that code would stop having Freedom
3<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#Definition>:
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits.

If you fancy that kind of freedoms (the freedom of removing your own code's
freedoms), you should search for a BSD-like license. Me, I don't like those
BSD licenses.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl> wrote:

>   One does not want Microsoft or
>>   Philips to take open source code, say "thank you", and incorporate it in
>>   closed source commercial code.
>>
>> Why do you choose the terms "open source" and "closed source"
>> (which avoid the issue of freedom), rather than the terms "free software"
>> and "proprietary software" which refer to freedom?
>>
>
> I apologize (again), I forgot how important terminology is (and sensitive).
> But, frankly, doesn't the above scenario demonstrate that "free software"
> is not entirely free? It may seem paradoxical, but Microsoft does *not* have
> the freedom to integrate "free" code in its proprietary products?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20090608/be8894c1/attachment-0001.htm>