by David "Novalis" Turner

How are GPL libraries "free", I am sometimes asked, if we don't permit proprietary software to link to them?

After all, Microsoft permits any software to link to their libraries (in most cases; some recent Microsoft libraries don't permit linking to copyleft software). I just got email suggesting that if someone linked proprietary software to GPL software, FSF would "kick down [his] door and turn over [his] desk." This isn't quite accurate; usually, I prefer to use grenades to open stubborn doors.

More seriously, we don't choose to use the criminal provisions of copyright law to have GPL violators hauled off to prison. We don't even usually need to call our lawyers. But Microsoft has had people imprisoned for violating their copyrights. My job would be a lot more fun if I were a commando. I would cut my hair short and smoke cigarettes and carry only small knives to ward off insinuations of compensation.

But back to the question: why are Microsoft's licenses occasionally more permissive? Because their goal is to get everyone using these libraries, which only work on their operating systems. It's just like a drug dealer offering the first hit for free. By contrast, FSF's goal is to have all published software be free software. We choose our license terms to advance that goal. You could also say that bombs are free to their targets, because the targets don't need to pay for them.

So, the answer is that we describe a license as free if it permits certain actions under reasonable terms: basically, copying, modification, and redistribution. We've even got a definition of free software. If you want to know whether we consider a particular set of terms reasonable, check the license list.

by David "Novalis" Turner

Nuclear war is a really bad thing.

It's so bad that we want to work really hard to avoid it. As the copyright holders of a whole bunch of free software, FSF has a lot of power. So, why do we permit the use of free software in nuclear weapons?

The GPL represents a truce between mutually hostile powers. Gigantic companies, who compete relentlessly in other areas, cooperate to improve the GNU C Compiler and other free software. And individuals from rival political movements, from communists to libertarians to radical anarchists hack on Free Software. I've met Free Software hackers who are evangelical vegans, and Free Software hackers who drive SUVs.

So, let's say we decided that version 3 of the GPL would contain a clause which would forbid you from using GPL software in nuclear weapons. The anti-nuclear activists would be very happy. But what about the anti-torture activists? Or people who oppose genetically modified foods, or the free biotech people? They would all be understandably upset that their pet cause is being neglected. And the nuclear engineers wouldn't be real happy about it either. Eugene Volokh makes the same point about free speech in general:

" Think of it as "censorship envy" -- if my neighbor gets to ban symbols he dislikes, why shouldn't I get to do the same? "

So, we reject restrictions on who can use free software, or what it can be used for. By keeping everyone on a level playing field, we get the widest possible participation in the free software movement. And the anti-nuclear activists are still free to use free software to organize and spread their ideas.

Read this article auf Deutsch