3 ms·

No it's just his same argument as ever. The GPL specifically addresses RMS' issues of software freedom. Choosing a different license ignores the topic of softwa

by ch 11y ago

No it's just his same argument as ever. The GPL specifically addresses RMS' issues of software freedom. Choosing a different license ignores the topic of software freedom as defined by the FSF. That's all he is saying. Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It's not impossible but much more complex than if you just have a EULA. That said if you remove that difficulty you neuter the GPL and weaken the point of software freedom. I get why RMS pisses people off. He doesn't keep arguing for using the GPL to be an asshole, but because he thinks software users are more important than software developers. Perhaps most developers feel differently?

simoncion 11y ago
> Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It seems like you accidentally a word somewhere in here, but know that you can charge ANY price you want for compiled software distributed under the terms of the GPL. Your only requirement is to -upon request from one to whom you have distributed your software- provide the source code for your software to that person. Fulfilling the request with patches against other code is acceptable. Requiring a snail-mailed request is acceptable. Charging your actual direct costs for fulfilling the request is acceptable. Selling GPL'd software isn't more complicated than selling non-GPL'd software. See also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- ch 11y ago
  Yeah. iPhone on a train is not an ideal way to have an Internet argument. My point was it complicates the business model of selling software artifacts since the GPL does not prevent downstream dissemination of the source so long as the GPL is not violated. So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software. I suppose one might argue the GPL holds hostage a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers. But well that's really the point. And I think that's what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > And I think that [a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers is] what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source. If I've correctly characterized your statement, I can't agree with it. RMS was originally motivated by his sudden inability to get access to the code for the driver for their computer lab's fancy laser printer to fix an embarrassingly bad bug that was wasting a bunch of other people's time. Many people prefer open source software because the guaranteed availability of source code helps to keep software that BigCos would no longer maintain (for whatever reason) alive, or dramatically improve software that companies can't be arsed to get right. [0] > So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software. Eh? AFAICT, the model still stands. If you've written everything in house, dual-license it. If you've not, and if you're writing software for BigCos, [1] put a clause in your support contract that stipulates that for the next X years, $CLIENT will upgrade to $LATEST_VERSION after $REASONABLE_TIME_PERIOD and will not use older versions, or else suffer termination of the support contract and monetary penalties. I mean, lots of people pay for (and keep upgrading) RHEL rather than use Centos or Scientific Linux. [0] Ferinstance, DD-WRT and OpenWRT have been really, really good for the state of home WiFi router security. [1] Which -frankly- is the only place I would expect to find such a license.

by ch 11y ago

simoncion 11y ago

> Look the GPL is a hard choice. It is very unfriendly to a developer who is looking to make a living on their code, since it makes selling that code as an artifact. It seems like you accidentally a word somewhere in here, but know that you can charge ANY price you want for compiled software distributed under the terms of the GPL. Your only requirement is to -upon request from one to whom you have distributed your software- provide the source code for your software to that person. Fulfilling the request with patches against other code is acceptable. Requiring a snail-mailed request is acceptable. Charging your actual direct costs for fulfilling the request is acceptable. Selling GPL'd software isn't more complicated than selling non-GPL'd software. See also: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

ch 11y ago
Yeah. iPhone on a train is not an ideal way to have an Internet argument. My point was it complicates the business model of selling software artifacts since the GPL does not prevent downstream dissemination of the source so long as the GPL is not violated. So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software. I suppose one might argue the GPL holds hostage a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers. But well that's really the point. And I think that's what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > And I think that [a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers is] what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source. If I've correctly characterized your statement, I can't agree with it. RMS was originally motivated by his sudden inability to get access to the code for the driver for their computer lab's fancy laser printer to fix an embarrassingly bad bug that was wasting a bunch of other people's time. Many people prefer open source software because the guaranteed availability of source code helps to keep software that BigCos would no longer maintain (for whatever reason) alive, or dramatically improve software that companies can't be arsed to get right. [0] > So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software. Eh? AFAICT, the model still stands. If you've written everything in house, dual-license it. If you've not, and if you're writing software for BigCos, [1] put a clause in your support contract that stipulates that for the next X years, $CLIENT will upgrade to $LATEST_VERSION after $REASONABLE_TIME_PERIOD and will not use older versions, or else suffer termination of the support contract and monetary penalties. I mean, lots of people pay for (and keep upgrading) RHEL rather than use Centos or Scientific Linux. [0] Ferinstance, DD-WRT and OpenWRT have been really, really good for the state of home WiFi router security. [1] Which -frankly- is the only place I would expect to find such a license.