stallman vs geohot on software licensing

## Stallman vs. Geohot on Software Licensing **Richard Stallman** and **George Hotz (geohot)** represent two very different philosophies on software licensing and user freedom. ### Stallman's Philosophy - Stallman is the founder of the free software movement and the main author of the GNU General Public License (GPL)[2][5]. - He advocates for "free software," meaning software that gives users the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute code. - Stallman pioneered the concept of **copyleft**, which uses copyright law to ensure these freedoms are preserved for all users and downstream developers[2][5]. - He is critical of proprietary software, restrictive licenses, DRM, and anything that limits user control or modification of software[2][5]. - For Stallman, the ethical imperative is user freedom, and the GPL enforces this by requiring derivative works to also be free and open[2][5]. ### Geohot's Perspective - George Hotz (geohot) is known for jailbreaking the iPhone and hacking the PlayStation 3, often in direct opposition to restrictive software and hardware licensing. - While not represented in the search results directly, geohot’s actions and public statements indicate a more pragmatic, hacker-centric view: he values the right to tinker, reverse-engineer, and bypass restrictions, but does not necessarily advocate for strict copyleft or "free software" in Stallman's sense. - Geohot has released code under permissive licenses (like MIT or BSD) and has sometimes criticized the GPL for being too restrictive or ideological, preferring licenses that maximize developer freedom—including the freedom to make software proprietary. ### Comparison Table | Aspect | Richard Stallman (GPL) | Geohot (Permissive/Hacker) | |-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------| | Core Value | User freedom (use, study, modify, share) | Developer freedom, right to tinker | | License Preference | Copyleft (GPL) | Permissive (MIT, BSD) | | View on Proprietary SW | Strongly opposed | Opposes restrictions, but less ideological| | Redistribution Rules | Derivatives must remain free/open | Derivatives can be closed or open | | Attitude Toward DRM | Actively fights DRM, calls it "digital restrictions" | Breaks DRM, but less focus on licensing | ### Key Differences - **Stallman** wants to guarantee freedom for all users, even at the cost of limiting what developers can do with the code (e.g., can't make it proprietary)[2][5]. - **Geohot** is more focused on breaking barriers and enabling hacking and reverse engineering, even if that means someone could take his code and make it closed-source. ### Summary Stallman’s approach is about protecting user freedoms through strong copyleft licensing (GPL), ensuring software remains free for everyone down the chain[2][5]. Geohot’s approach is more about enabling individual freedom to hack, tinker, and bypass restrictions, often favoring permissive licenses that allow maximum flexibility—even if that means the code could become proprietary. This reflects a fundamental divide: Stallman’s ethics-driven, community-focused model vs. geohot’s pragmatic, hacker-centric ethos. [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Why I Recommend the GPL License.