It depends on what freedom. GPL isn't free; it's handcuffware. It's "freedom" on someone else's terms. BSD is a truly free license whereas GPL is an attempt at an anti-capitalist license model.
It's freedom on my terms too: GPL protects the developer and user community from malicious patents, hostile forks, lock-down attempts, bait-and-switch-to-closed.
The question is why those are legitimate things to insist on protection against. Surely a free software license couldn't say "it's forbidden to run this program on iOS" or "nobody affiliated with the US government may modify the code", even though the free software community has real concerns about walled gardens and government backdoors.
> Surely a free software license couldn't say "it's forbidden to run this program on iOS"
Of course not, free software allows the user to use the software however they wish. Anything else would be unfree software.
However, if you receive software governed the GPL, it is NOT legal to publish that software via the iOS App Store, as that violates the users' GPL-given right to build and run modifications. (The original author can dual-license software they create, in both GPL and iOS-licensed versions)
> why those are legitimate things to insist on protection against
Because there is a track record of this things happening and damaging the projects.
> Surely a free software license couldn't say "it's forbidden to run this program on iOS"
Restrictions like "don't be evil, don't use it inside NSA" can be either too vague to be applicable, easy to circumvent, legally inapplicable or nonsensical.
E.g. in many countries some institutions including military are not restricted by copyright law.
On top of that, shipping a distribution with thousands of different licenses would be a nightmare.
What do you mean? Free software was specifically designed to be about user freedoms (and all users, not just developers). Forbidding software from running on any given platform would go against this goal.
Are you asking why did they choose this goal? There are many essays explaining why this goal mattered to both FSF- and OpenSource- advocates.
But copyleft licenses do end up preventing software from running on some platforms. For example, none of the work that goes into the Linux kernel can be made available to Windows users.
I'm sure the FSF sees this as a tradeoff that has to be made in order to keep free software viable. But that's a very different story than "user freedom is everything".
Well, that's right. The GPL is designed so that you can't copy-and-paste GPL code into a closed-source project. For software competing with each other, that stops the arms race being won by the side that can use their own work, and the work of the other side.
It is certainly fair in the sense that the Linux or BSD kernel people will never get to see, and benefit from the NT code, but microsoft and Apple can certainly use any BSD or MIT licensed code they want to.
But using Linux kernel code in the NT kernel is a special case of software sharing that can only be done at the source code level, by experienced programmers. And then it has to be released by the project maintainers, in this case the linux foundation, or microsoft.
But application code (e.g. an mp3 player), can be released for both windows and linux whether they are closed-source, or GPL.
The kernel might not be the best example to make your point.
> I'm sure the FSF sees this as a tradeoff that has to be made in order to keep free software viable. But that's a very different story than "user freedom is everything".
That presumes that the FSF's tradeoff is getting things wrong. If this strategy is what results in maximum overall user freedom, then that is exactly the strategy you have to follow if "user freedom is everything".
It is meaningless to say that making slavery illegal is a tradeoff that has to be made in order to keep a free society viable, but that is a very different story than "human freedom is everything". Yes, human freedom is everything, and that is exactly why we restrict people from owning slaves, there is no contradiction there.
What do you mean? The Linux kernel could theoretically be available to Windows users. In practice, embedding parts of the kernel in Windows under the license provisions of the Linux kernel is something Microsoft is unlikely to want (which makes sense because of their business model). Note that a lot of Free software does run on Windows, so the problem is not about Windows as a platform.
This is not inconsistent with "user freedom is everything".
Its freedom for end users. Not developers and not businesses. Because developers and businesses have proven many times, they will abuse the power granted by bad laws, licenses, agreements and code. They even exploit code intended to be good, but licensed poorly, against even the original author.
The big difference between BSD and GPL (after all the legalese is said and done) is as follows:
* BSD says you have the freedom to swing your fists
* GPL says that your freedom to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose.
That's pretty much the difference in practice. That's actually pretty similar to how our capitalist, democratic society works. (we do restrict people's freedoms where they would end up taking away freedom from someone else).
Sometimes the one approach is better, sometimes the other. Apply right tool to right job, as needed.
Note that it is entirely possible to earn money using free (as in speech) software, and many quite capitalist companies do so.
(ps; in my limited experience in hiring expensive lawyers to resolve legal conflicts while capitalisting: the GPL appears to deliver a lot more bang for buck than MIT or BSD. In that limited domain. MIT and BSD can be quite useful in other domains! )
It is hardly anti-capitalist. It is anti-exploitation. Granted, given the some of capitalists we currently have to put up with, it is easy to miss the distinction, but it is there.
I would, however, encourage you to continue to avoid software that does not meet your ethical standards. That is what I do, and why I refuse to use software from a number of sources myself.
It's literally anti-capitalist: It is specifically designed to prevent software from being a form of capital that rent can be extracted from, since Free software can be given away by anyone who has it, destroying the software's value as capital. (The Free software model, only knowledge and skill in consulting and services is useful as capital)
The sheer volume of these type of post is beginning to smell a lot like astroturfing. The faux outrage is comical.
No issues with any Apple device with the lastest software for myself or anyone I know. I can only assume that these are either edge cases or unmitigated hyperbole.
You're saying that more evidence makes something less likely to be true? I suppose Elvis is alive, too.
Add this to your proof of conspiracy: my daughter's stock 12-inch MacBook, purchased this summer, updated to 10.13.1 and started having exactly the same problems. The only reason I know is she recently started borrowing my non-macOS computer to get her homework done.
Like "they", "them" and "their"? English is a wonderfully flexible language, it's such a shame that ridiculous and faddish political correctness is so utterly blind to it.
What, they think that 3000 signatures will make Apple change their terms? 3000 devs that in all likelihood will find another reason to whine? 3000 people that do not under what free speech is?
So don't use Apple kit! Simple, really. But, if you espouse freedom of speech and freedom of choice, you must logically accept that people will want this choice. That's the problem with the OSS Stasi; the choice they mean is their choice or no choice...
You just stepped into an argument between an enormous corporation that imposes extremely long and draconian terms on their closed system they control and others who use pretty mild legal terms to keep their work in the public commons, and you called the loose bunch of community folks "Stasi".
