Why some Software ask restrictions ? Can they not do that ?

Yes, if you haven’t noticed, a lot of software is taking our freedom, explaining how a user is prone to such abuse or dishonesty, can be hard to fathom and that’s understandable. You can get an idea when you hear Sir Richard Stallman’s explanation of it, but experiencing it in reality can be a life time thing. You really start to know the secret in how influence is distributed and flows within society.

         Resource, ownership and influence level can be exaggerated, when someone gives an offer to hand out something. Just because you receive it from them into your hands doesn’t mean you got it all. In a non free manner that provider might demand conditions, before they get money, or whichever you exchanged the software with. They can say “Don’t let others use it“, or “Keep it in a specific place and don’t resell it“.

         There are two scenarios where that happens, the first is when the provider isn’t as powerful as they seem. It can be their fault that they didn’t clarify that. The second is when the provider can allow freedom but regardless, still want to get the most out of you. They create a chain of influence and work motion where, they remain the strongest in the circle, an economical privilege that should be questioned.

         A first scenario can happen when your brother says hey.. “Take this PlayStation in return for your computer screen, but hey..! Don’t let our nephews play with it, it’s only for you“. You get confused and say “Well it should be mine, why you ask me not to do that ?“, usually they don’t have an explanation, but the real reason is that someone else might say, “Why didn’t you let my kids play with it too ?“, and your brother ends up in trouble. In that case it might be understandable but the person should at least clarify their reasons and seek out the most influence you can get.

         The second scenario goes where someone has five cars, and wants to share one with his friend. Nevertheless, if that friend shares his car to his other friends, the provider won’t receive as much requests and therefore can’t exchange benefits. A way to prevent that is giving the car under a contract that says, “only you who can drive it“. People having freedom means having more power, and in having more power, comes less requests. A person who wishes others to ask him for favors wouldn’t want them to be independent.

         GPL version 3 is like a liberal trying to understand conservatives, not that he agrees with them, but unfortunately, they have to make adjustments. GPL version 2 on the other hand, will be the future version 4, If you haven’t paid good attention, but not in the next few decades, because a mixture of capitalism, reality and competition, can’t have freedom fully provided just yet. Not that capitalism is wrong but our world needs further improvements for provisions of social security.

         When you really think about it, intellectual copyrights of movies and books aren’t really close friends with Free Software, because as long as an idea helps the people, it should never be restrained. How cruel can it be to stop someone, from using a story you wrote as a bed time for their kids to sleep, just because they didn’t give you the money for it. Yes in the USA, copyright is a huge concern and right to fight for, but the scopes change, and in order to know the morally permissible cases of Free Software, we might want to know the morally permissible ones for movies, books, music, inventions etc. It’s a principle, a mentality that stems from a belief, this is never about money, but it is.

         To allow Free Software to thrive, a different exchange system is needed, where programmers are compensated by the government for every recognized successful software, while still not leaning towards communism. Socialism can be a view, but the socialism that allows challenge and capitalism.

         To allow Free Software to thrive we need independent workers, who have enough money to keep going, and worry less about losing food or their home. An argument towards freedom will be stronger then.

         To allow Free Software to thrive we need to teach moral motivation and selflessness, for the betterment of the world.

         Free Software is a moral, philosophical, effective and a very sensitive, righteous way to believe. We should figure out what’s on the claims of the opposite side, and help them be less dependent to lean towards us, but still, freedom is the most important property our world can have, and without it, a good day can turn bad.

         Long live the Free Software Foundation !