683686285

I fundamentally disagree. People don't choose where they are born and don't owe any aligiance to the state that happens to control that territory.

Just because the local mob accepted my protection money and left me alone doesn't mean I have a moral obligation to defend them against a competitor.

Your definition of freedom seem to be other people doing what you want them to do. That's not how I see freedom. Someone offering software as a service is not a threat to anyone's freedom. Preventing them from doing so by the threat of state violence makes both the business and it's potential customers less free.

Why do you assume they expect “the country” to do anything for them? I certainly don't want “the country” to do anything for me and I don't want to do anything for “the country” that I wouldn't do for anyone.

Also, anyone who want men but not women to be forced to fight is not a feminist.

Nobody should be forced to participate in a war. These men (and trans women who the state considers to be men) are being victimized twice. First by the Russian government who brought war to their home, and then again by the Ukrainian government who is forcing them to participate in that war.

While forcing even more people to fight would obviously be even worse, the exclusion of one sex makes it feel worse because of its fundamental unfairness and the sexism it perpetuates. Perhaps it's illogical, but I actually feel better about being from a country with equal conscription where twice as many people are at risk of being forced to kill and die for the state, although I would of course prefer if the state relinquished its claim to its citizen's lives and gave everyone a choice.

I'm taking about a universe where violence is impossible. Not a universe where people are compelled to distribute source code whenever they have distributed a binary file.

I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of forcing people to do what I want and that's the clear purpose of GPL.

Somebody not doing what I want is not coercing me. I'm free to use or not use a binary distributed without it's source code, or I can try to reverse engineer it. Forcing them to do the additional work of sending me the source code would be coercing them, it would be impossible in my hypothetical alternative universe, and it would be wrong in this universe.

Not distributing source code is not coercion. GPL forces people to do work in exchange for a promise that they will not be subject to volience, that's coercion.

I would if I could, but I don't have any power over any government.

Freedom to me is whatever exists in the absence of coercion. GPL licenses depends on coercion, so they cannot produce freedom as I see it.

To illustrate this, imagine an alternative universe where violence is impossible. In this universe IP as we know it including copyleft licenses couldn't exist as violence or credible threats of violence by a state (or similar entity) is required for enforcement. I want to get as close to this hypothetical universe as possible by avoiding everything that depends on violence and coercion as far as possible.

I'm not pretending copyright doesn't exist, but I want other people to be able to interact with my work as if copyright and other forms of IP didn't exist.

There doesn't seem to be a perfect way to achieve this. The problem with CC0 (and I believe the reason OSI doesn't approve of it) is that it says:

> No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.

Whereas many licenses can be interpreted as an implied patent license[0]. I guess adding an additional declaration saying something like this could fix that:

> All trademark and patent rights associated with this work are permanently waived.

But I have no idea if that would work and it's frustrating that there is no simple way of opting out of intellectual 'property' ownership all together.

The closest, at least when it comes to software may be 0BSD considering large corporations like Google are willing to accept it.

[0]: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/11653

I assume Google's legal department is not irrational and that they are worrying about something that could happen to anyone.

The problem with most licenses is that they require that the license be distributed with the content that is licensed. I don't want to force people to do anything. I want it to be as if copyright doesn't exist.