6 ms·

GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. Now I understand this can me it unpopular with closed-source shops but it wasn't designed to make corporatio

by tagrun 11y ago

GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. Now I understand this can me it unpopular with closed-source shops but it wasn't designed to make corporations happy. I would've expected someone who volunteered at FSF understood this basic fact (or trade-off, if you like) long ago. After reading your story, I'm not sure what actually motivated you to volunteer there in the first place. I somehow can't believe it's because you really shared their philosophy. To me, it seems you are the one who's twisting things motivated by a personal anecdote.

reitanqild 11y ago
> GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. What possibly can be said in favour of GPL is that it: * make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free * opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing * provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code Case in point : there is nothing in either the ASL, BSD or MIT that allows you to go back and make already licensed code less free. The original authors can choose to license their new or existing code under another license as well, as can coders using GPL. Personally I would be happy if everyone could stop pretending that GPL is more free or respects users more, - as I have tried to show above it does not. There might still be ideological and even practical reasons to use GPL, but it is NOT more free, possibly less.
- random778 11y ago
  How do you define freedom w.r.t. software? Based on your examples, you differ from Stallman, but it is unclear to me how you see it.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    more restrictions => the less freedom. Which means liberal licenses pr def are more free.
- prodigal_erik 11y ago
  iOS and MacOS users face huge barriers to hacking their devices because the BSD license didn't even attempt to ensure their freedom to do so. To publish code without copyleft is to donate your work to the parasites of the industry.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    iOS and Mac users willingly chose shiny over free. They never had a free OS, merely one built on some free components. Re parasites: do you mean people and companies who use OSS without giving (enough) back, like most of us?
- srean 11y ago
  > As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. Nope. As a user of a closed source program built on top of BSD or ASL license I certainly don't have the rights I would have had if the bottom layers were GPL. BSD, ASL allows the programmer to (type) cast away the freedoms, they can inherit in private, enjoying the benefits but giving nothing back.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    >>> GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. >> As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. > Nope. As a user of a closed source program built on top of BSD or ASL license... Bam. Got you. You, and the Mac users mentioned in the other comment weren't using open source software. Users of the original software are still protected. > I certainly don't have the rights I would have had if the bottom layers were GPL. You wouldn't anyway. They'd just use something else.
    - srean 11y ago
      Precisely my point, BSD or ASL allows one to inherit free but make the final product non-free. The end user (incidentally, also the original author) gets cut out of it.
- tagrun 11y ago
  > As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. Suppose someone forked BSD kernel, modified it heavily over years and made a closed source product of out of it (you don't actually need to suppose it anyway). Users get zero out of four freedoms they would have gotten with GPL. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html As a user, you now can't freely run the kernel on multiple computers as you like, you are not allowed to investigate what the binary blob actually does on your hardware, you're not allowed to give a copy to your friend, and you're not allowed to make patches and redistribute. So while this worked very well for some company and allowed them to launch a series of products in series quickly (which translated into billions in revenues), it screwed all of the four basic freedoms for all (paying) users. Now tell me, how exactly is BSD license going to protect my rights as a user here? As for the original developers of BSD, I'm guessing they might have been happier if that company contributed (some of) their changes back. Or maybe a few bucks from the billions of dollars they made. BSD license basically gave the company to screw everyone else, both end users and original developers. Only a free software license such as GPL protects them both. > make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free GPL doesn't have any restriction on forks. At all. Re-licensing and forking are orthogonal concepts. > opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing That doesn't have anything to do with GPL itself. > provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code It guarantees that four freedoms mentioned in the above link are protected.
_ph_ 11y ago
No, GPL software was not meant to make corporations happy. But to me, the spirit of open source software is, to make the software used and to encourage sharing of the source between developers. Now, with all the challenges for corporations, GPL basically ensures that most developers of commercial software have to stay away from it and are forced to create a parallel, closed universe. And you don't need the strict requirements of the GPL to keep software open. As we can see from the recent opening up of .NET, Swift, etc. even very large companies prefer the open source approach for their projects, as long as it does not exclude them from any non-open use.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > the spirit of open source software is, to make the software used and to encourage sharing of the source between developers. This is why many of us feel it is important to support Free Software instead of Open Source Software. Freedom - and preserving a free development environment for General Purpose Computers - is a far more important goal. > GPL basically ensures that most developers of commercial software have to stay away from it That's not the GPL's fault, proven by the fact that there are commercial software companies that sell GPL software. There are reasons to not use GPL, but you don't want to follow the community's rules, you don't get to steal their work. Nothing is free; either pay the price the community sets (follow the GPL), or negotiate another license from the authors. > very large companies prefer the open source approach Yes, they prefer being able to take code for free without any ethical obligation to give back, a very narcissistic attitude. This meme that the GPL is "bad" or "less-free" is just a cheap excuse to try to get free code. > exclude them from any non-open use They only have to open the code associated with someone else's GPL code they are using. Depending on what you're writing, this code can be isolated so you only need to open the source to that particular program. If you're linking to an LGPL library, it's even easier.
  - isolate 11y ago
    Nobody really sells GPL software, they sell support for it or they sell it together with hardware. I mean, the GPL is perfectly reasonable from a commercial perspective if you're going to charge a one-time fee to release your software and dispense with royalties, but nobody really does that.

by tagrun 11y ago

reitanqild 11y ago

> GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. What possibly can be said in favour of GPL is that it: * make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free * opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing * provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code Case in point : there is nothing in either the ASL, BSD or MIT that allows you to go back and make already licensed code less free. The original authors can choose to license their new or existing code under another license as well, as can coders using GPL. Personally I would be happy if everyone could stop pretending that GPL is more free or respects users more, - as I have tried to show above it does not. There might still be ideological and even practical reasons to use GPL, but it is NOT more free, possibly less.

random778 11y ago
How do you define freedom w.r.t. software? Based on your examples, you differ from Stallman, but it is unclear to me how you see it.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  more restrictions => the less freedom. Which means liberal licenses pr def are more free.
prodigal_erik 11y ago
iOS and MacOS users face huge barriers to hacking their devices because the BSD license didn't even attempt to ensure their freedom to do so. To publish code without copyleft is to donate your work to the parasites of the industry.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  iOS and Mac users willingly chose shiny over free. They never had a free OS, merely one built on some free components. Re parasites: do you mean people and companies who use OSS without giving (enough) back, like most of us?
srean 11y ago
> As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. Nope. As a user of a closed source program built on top of BSD or ASL license I certainly don't have the rights I would have had if the bottom layers were GPL. BSD, ASL allows the programmer to (type) cast away the freedoms, they can inherit in private, enjoying the benefits but giving nothing back.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  >>> GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. >> As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. > Nope. As a user of a closed source program built on top of BSD or ASL license... Bam. Got you. You, and the Mac users mentioned in the other comment weren't using open source software. Users of the original software are still protected. > I certainly don't have the rights I would have had if the bottom layers were GPL. You wouldn't anyway. They'd just use something else.
  - srean 11y ago
    Precisely my point, BSD or ASL allows one to inherit free but make the final product non-free. The end user (incidentally, also the original author) gets cut out of it.
tagrun 11y ago
> As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. Suppose someone forked BSD kernel, modified it heavily over years and made a closed source product of out of it (you don't actually need to suppose it anyway). Users get zero out of four freedoms they would have gotten with GPL. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html As a user, you now can't freely run the kernel on multiple computers as you like, you are not allowed to investigate what the binary blob actually does on your hardware, you're not allowed to give a copy to your friend, and you're not allowed to make patches and redistribute. So while this worked very well for some company and allowed them to launch a series of products in series quickly (which translated into billions in revenues), it screwed all of the four basic freedoms for all (paying) users. Now tell me, how exactly is BSD license going to protect my rights as a user here? As for the original developers of BSD, I'm guessing they might have been happier if that company contributed (some of) their changes back. Or maybe a few bucks from the billions of dollars they made. BSD license basically gave the company to screw everyone else, both end users and original developers. Only a free software license such as GPL protects them both. > make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free GPL doesn't have any restriction on forks. At all. Re-licensing and forking are orthogonal concepts. > opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing That doesn't have anything to do with GPL itself. > provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code It guarantees that four freedoms mentioned in the above link are protected.

_ph_ 11y ago

No, GPL software was not meant to make corporations happy. But to me, the spirit of open source software is, to make the software used and to encourage sharing of the source between developers. Now, with all the challenges for corporations, GPL basically ensures that most developers of commercial software have to stay away from it and are forced to create a parallel, closed universe. And you don't need the strict requirements of the GPL to keep software open. As we can see from the recent opening up of .NET, Swift, etc. even very large companies prefer the open source approach for their projects, as long as it does not exclude them from any non-open use.

pdkl95 11y ago
> the spirit of open source software is, to make the software used and to encourage sharing of the source between developers. This is why many of us feel it is important to support Free Software instead of Open Source Software. Freedom - and preserving a free development environment for General Purpose Computers - is a far more important goal. > GPL basically ensures that most developers of commercial software have to stay away from it That's not the GPL's fault, proven by the fact that there are commercial software companies that sell GPL software. There are reasons to not use GPL, but you don't want to follow the community's rules, you don't get to steal their work. Nothing is free; either pay the price the community sets (follow the GPL), or negotiate another license from the authors. > very large companies prefer the open source approach Yes, they prefer being able to take code for free without any ethical obligation to give back, a very narcissistic attitude. This meme that the GPL is "bad" or "less-free" is just a cheap excuse to try to get free code. > exclude them from any non-open use They only have to open the code associated with someone else's GPL code they are using. Depending on what you're writing, this code can be isolated so you only need to open the source to that particular program. If you're linking to an LGPL library, it's even easier.
- isolate 11y ago
  Nobody really sells GPL software, they sell support for it or they sell it together with hardware. I mean, the GPL is perfectly reasonable from a commercial perspective if you're going to charge a one-time fee to release your software and dispense with royalties, but nobody really does that.