No such thing. The first amendment only says the government (i.e., OTHERS) can't restrict your freedom of speech.
And, not only others like the Federal Government, but also others like State Goverments, County Governments, and City Governments. Hopefully a few concrete examples is more illustrative than the more abstracted "others".
Yes, even you are restricted in your freedom to restrict the freedom of others. In turn, you are more free as the same restriction applies to others in that they cannot restrict your freedom. I can tell this is difficult to absorb, but the net result is that we are more free.
I have every right to kick you off my property,
Correct, the property is yours and I am restricted from encroaching on it, giving you more freedom on your own property. Consequently, you are restricted from encroaching on my property, providing me more freedom on my own property. I'm hoping you see the pattern in this.
Yes, you can because I'm restricted from punching you to stop the shouting. The restriction on my behavior, is your freedom to express your mind. Enjoy the paradox and your freedom which derives from it.
fire you from your job if I don't like what you have to say
The primary restrictions of the First Amendment is on governments of all sizes as a structural foundation to keep them democratic, because prior undemocratic governments were the most likely to have the largest impact on the freedoms of the People as a whole. Whereas a business can only impact the rights of a small subset of the People. However, even businesses have restrictions on their ability to restrict your freedoms.
For example...
refuse to serve you as a customer
Even that freedom to restrict others by refusing service is restricted, allowing more people their freedom to be served at more establishments. The business refusing is restricted not to include race in the refusal, freeing entire populations of minorities to enter all establishments no matter what their race, color, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation. Again, it's an example of a carefully considered restriction allowing more freedom for more people.
The GPL doesn't try to bar you from stopping people from using the same open source code you got.
Neither the BSD nor the GPL bar that. What differs is that the GPL'd software can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and it can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form with restrictions that only ensure that further recipients have the same rights under which it was obtained.
In short, the GPL ensures that others cannot restrict your freedom to obtain their modifications, just as their freedom was not restricted when they obtained modifications made by others.
The net result is that more people have freedom to access the evolving code as long as it is distributed, and you can pick up the evolution further downstream many generations later on since your freedom to access the distributed changes cannot be restricted. Whereas under the BSD, there is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others from evolving the derived changes you made and distributed. Both the GPL and the BSD have restrictions. Which one that is used is dependent on the understanding of the original developer on what type of behavior is wanted.
...it says YOU MUST CONTRIBUTE.
Only if you DISTRIBUTE the derivation.
= 9J =
