Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

David Trudgett wrote:

> But why does RMS think that BSD is weak? Here is the answer:
> 
>     Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny
>     freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to
>     defend their freedom.
> 
>         -- ibid.
> 
> In other words, Stallman is advocating that one should use the
> violence of the law against other people in order to stamp on their
> freedom of action, for what other meaning can, "you let him do it,"
> and, "failing to defend their freedom," have?

Yes, and forceful protection of this or that freedom is not unusual.
Hypocrisy only arrises when you fix the definition of freedom
to be universal, close to the halting problem, and inapplicable
in the real world:
Many people will ask the police for violence when
a robber is threatening a hostage. When there appears to be no
other way to free the hostage, shoot the robber when you can make sure 
you won't kill the hostage. In other words, use violence of the
law to stamp on the robbers (perceived) freedom of action, on behalf
of both the hostage, and society as represented by its legal rules.
There are two instances of freedom here.

(If you think the robber doesn't have this freedom of action,
just think of a less simplisitc situation that is less clear.
Motives such as hunger, culture based assumptions in a
country where people have different cultural backgrounds,
in-group jurisdiction in areas where there is no police,
but where, formally, the rules of a country would apply, etc.)

Yet shooting kidnappers doesn't mean that common sense says, shoot
when you think you are free to do so. Rob when you think robbing
is your freedom of action.
I read that Florida legislation has spured a discussion on the
degree of the freedom to use a gun early in the process.



> The FSF says that proprietary software is wrong because it denies
> freedoms to people, yet it then uses the very same legal tool to deny
> freedoms to people. Is it difficult to see hypocrisy in this?

Freedoms, as you have written, is plural.
This or that freedom is just an overloading issue with "freedom".
If you have a way to draw meaning from some absolute freedom,
then, oK, there is nothing to argue about. The FSF says which
freedoms they prefer, and why.

I can't think that some absolute freedom exist on this planet as
can be seen by looking at what you are free to do in this country
or that country. Or by considering what nature forces
you to do (you can't say, "I'm free not to eat", and "I'm free to
live on", at the same time. Won't work.)

As you mentioned, there are different definitions of "free".
Do they matter when it comes to the legal content of the GPL?

-- Georg