4 ms·

It's a somewhat artificial distinction, since the user of a piece of software becomes a developer to modify it. And to preclude modifications which prevent him

It's a somewhat artificial distinction, since the user of a piece of software becomes a developer to modify it. And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. Prehaps it would not be if money (etc.) didnt exist. It's always the way, however, with idealists to prescribe policies that make people free in their utopia but cause chaos in our reality.

_delirium 11y ago
> And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. This sounds a lot like the people saying that adblocker software is infringing the freedom of people trying to monetize their websites (or maybe even "stealing" from them). And I think the same response applies: the fact that your business model isn't compatible with adblocker software, or with my choice of software license, isn't my problem. Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. You can only distribute derivative works of it at all because I've granted you a license. A royalty-free one at that! With the only condition being the copyleft condition: that you keep any derived works as open as the original. If you don't like that condition, we can negotiate a commercial license on whatever terms you want, with appropriate payment. Or you can write your own software...
- eropple 11y ago
  > Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. Who's claiming that? On the other hand, I've met more than a few pro-FSF people who seem to think it's cromulent to claim that I don't have the right to profit off my work (which is insane; you can pick whatever license you'd like, copyleft or not, and so can I).
  - Nadya 11y ago
    You aren't profiting off your work, you're piggybacking off their work with just enough tweaks to sell it. Go write your own software if you want to profit off your work. Then you won't have to deal with the copyleft licenses because you won't be using anyone else's work. Which is the exact purpose of a copyleft license.
    - eropple 11y ago
      I think you should re-read my post. I don't have a problem with other people choosing to use the GPL, and dealing with its terms or choosing not to use it. I have a problem with the temerity of people like the FSF insisting I use copyleft or I'm somehow immoral.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    I think you have likely confused what the pro-FSF people say... Likely they said it is unethical for you to distribute software with out access to the code. Which you interpreted to be against profiting since you likely believe that open source == no profit.
    - eropple 11y ago
      I'm well aware of how to make money with open-source software. I do it. I am working to no longer do it, because wage slavery (be it W-2 or under the guise of "consulting") sucks. Turns out that you need capital to do that, and the FSF's insistence that digital bits as capital is immoral is silly.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > Turns out that you need capital to do that, and the FSF's insistence that digital bits as capital is immoral is silly. Jesus. Read this http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowM... and this http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html It's a pity that you're so misinformed. :(
        eropple 11y ago
        That has nothing to do with what I've said, and I don't think you understand what capital is. The GPL is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of software as a capital asset; when its value as a salable object is effectively zero due to the ease of marginal duplication, one's business model becomes a labor-oriented one, i.e. consulting. Which means burning one's time, which is what one acquires capital assets to avoid doing. But, clearly, I'm so misinformed. I obviously haven't thought this through. I didn't read everything Stallman wrote a decade ago. And I certainly haven't read the GPL (both v2 and v3) line-by-line to understand its ramifications. It's a pity you felt like you needed to be an asshole about this.
        simoncion 11y ago
- simoncion 11y ago
  > Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. You can only distribute derivative works of it at all because I've granted you a license. Sure, but one's choice of the GPL has signalled that one wishes that others be permitted the freedom to build upon the work and do as they wish [0] with their additions -as well as the original work- just so long as they -upon request- distribute the original and their additions to folks who have received the binaries. [0] This includes charging for access to compiled versions of the software, access to support and documentation, etc. etc. etc. [1] [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- mjburgess 11y ago
  It's just an observation about which licence maximises the freedom of the user. Since we're in a capitalist system, monetization of one's labour is hugely important from real-term freedom. To deny people that is to make them less free. So the most permissive licence is the one providing the most freedom.
the_ancient 11y ago
Nothing in GPL prevents monetization, this is one of the major myths. I assume your one of those people that believes it is impossible to make money off "free" code Further it is not about developer not making money off his/her code, but not exploiting the work of others with and denying follow on developers the work of others.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
elsjaako 11y ago
What I take from it is that he wants to provide freedom in general, not of any particular person. If I have the freedom to take someone elses freedom away, then that is more freedom until I actually take someones freedom away. To use an extreme example, if we had the freedom to own slaves you could argue that there where more freedoms available to us. But if you actually want to protect freedom you don't allow people to own slaves.

_delirium 11y ago

> And to preclude modifications which prevent him from effectively monetizing his labour is to infringe on his freedom. This sounds a lot like the people saying that adblocker software is infringing the freedom of people trying to monetize their websites (or maybe even "stealing" from them). And I think the same response applies: the fact that your business model isn't compatible with adblocker software, or with my choice of software license, isn't my problem. Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. You can only distribute derivative works of it at all because I've granted you a license. A royalty-free one at that! With the only condition being the copyleft condition: that you keep any derived works as open as the original. If you don't like that condition, we can negotiate a commercial license on whatever terms you want, with appropriate payment. Or you can write your own software...

eropple 11y ago
> Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. Who's claiming that? On the other hand, I've met more than a few pro-FSF people who seem to think it's cromulent to claim that I don't have the right to profit off my work (which is insane; you can pick whatever license you'd like, copyleft or not, and so can I).
- Nadya 11y ago
  You aren't profiting off your work, you're piggybacking off their work with just enough tweaks to sell it. Go write your own software if you want to profit off your work. Then you won't have to deal with the copyleft licenses because you won't be using anyone else's work. Which is the exact purpose of a copyleft license.
  - eropple 11y ago
    I think you should re-read my post. I don't have a problem with other people choosing to use the GPL, and dealing with its terms or choosing not to use it. I have a problem with the temerity of people like the FSF insisting I use copyleft or I'm somehow immoral.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  I think you have likely confused what the pro-FSF people say... Likely they said it is unethical for you to distribute software with out access to the code. Which you interpreted to be against profiting since you likely believe that open source == no profit.
  - eropple 11y ago
    I'm well aware of how to make money with open-source software. I do it. I am working to no longer do it, because wage slavery (be it W-2 or under the guise of "consulting") sucks. Turns out that you need capital to do that, and the FSF's insistence that digital bits as capital is immoral is silly.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > Turns out that you need capital to do that, and the FSF's insistence that digital bits as capital is immoral is silly. Jesus. Read this http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowM... and this http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html It's a pity that you're so misinformed. :(
      - eropple 11y ago
        That has nothing to do with what I've said, and I don't think you understand what capital is. The GPL is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of software as a capital asset; when its value as a salable object is effectively zero due to the ease of marginal duplication, one's business model becomes a labor-oriented one, i.e. consulting. Which means burning one's time, which is what one acquires capital assets to avoid doing. But, clearly, I'm so misinformed. I obviously haven't thought this through. I didn't read everything Stallman wrote a decade ago. And I certainly haven't read the GPL (both v2 and v3) line-by-line to understand its ramifications. It's a pity you felt like you needed to be an asshole about this.
        simoncion 11y ago
simoncion 11y ago
> Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. You can only distribute derivative works of it at all because I've granted you a license. Sure, but one's choice of the GPL has signalled that one wishes that others be permitted the freedom to build upon the work and do as they wish [0] with their additions -as well as the original work- just so long as they -upon request- distribute the original and their additions to folks who have received the binaries. [0] This includes charging for access to compiled versions of the software, access to support and documentation, etc. etc. etc. [1] [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
mjburgess 11y ago
It's just an observation about which licence maximises the freedom of the user. Since we're in a capitalist system, monetization of one's labour is hugely important from real-term freedom. To deny people that is to make them less free. So the most permissive licence is the one providing the most freedom.

the_ancient 11y ago

Nothing in GPL prevents monetization, this is one of the major myths. I assume your one of those people that believes it is impossible to make money off "free" code Further it is not about developer not making money off his/her code, but not exploiting the work of others with and denying follow on developers the work of others.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

elsjaako 11y ago

What I take from it is that he wants to provide freedom in general, not of any particular person. If I have the freedom to take someone elses freedom away, then that is more freedom until I actually take someones freedom away. To use an extreme example, if we had the freedom to own slaves you could argue that there where more freedoms available to us. But if you actually want to protect freedom you don't allow people to own slaves.