4 ms·

> That's orthogonal to whether the prospective user of the package has an actual choice or not (besides using as GPL it or going without). You've just outlined

by cyphar 11y ago

> That's orthogonal to whether the prospective user of the package has an actual choice or not (besides using as GPL it or going without). You've just outlined the choice that the person has. Admittedly, I wouldn't use the GPL for libraries, I've started using the MPLv2 for stuff like that. I don't really agree with the common reading of the combined work clause in the GPL wrt libraries (a work that uses a library's API shouldn't be bound by the copyleft of the GPL IMO -- but as Oracle has proven, APIs appear to be copyrightable). > WHATEVER THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS' REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE GPL (sic), it doesn't change the situation that one might not be happy for a project they want to use being in GPL -- including people who don't intend to make it proprietary, but who prefer BSD licenses nevertheless. BSD licenses allow distributors of the software to make it proprietary. That was clearly a more important problem to the author and community of the software than allowing GPL-incompatible projects to use the code. It's a fundamentally ethical decision, which you may disagree with if you follow the open source (as opposed to free software) philosophy.

WayneBro 11y ago
You're missing the point. He's saying that there's technically a choice, yes. You agree on that. The part you seem to avoid agreeing with is that it can often be a really annoying choice to have to make. Isn't everybody entitled to be annoyed when they only have one so-called choice? (Like having to move or use slower alternatives in order to get away from Comcast as your ISP.) Continually pointing out that there is technically a choice doesn't really help anyone who feels bitten by their lack of choices.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  No. Not when in exchange for that "annoyance" (not really an annoyance at all), you get a lot of stuff for free.
- cyphar 11y ago
  You don't get the right to be annoyed when you have to comply with the license terms of something that you haven't had to spend time working on (and usually get without paying for it).

by cyphar 11y ago

WayneBro 11y ago

You're missing the point. He's saying that there's technically a choice, yes. You agree on that. The part you seem to avoid agreeing with is that it can often be a really annoying choice to have to make. Isn't everybody entitled to be annoyed when they only have one so-called choice? (Like having to move or use slower alternatives in order to get away from Comcast as your ISP.) Continually pointing out that there is technically a choice doesn't really help anyone who feels bitten by their lack of choices.

st3v3r 11y ago
No. Not when in exchange for that "annoyance" (not really an annoyance at all), you get a lot of stuff for free.
cyphar 11y ago
You don't get the right to be annoyed when you have to comply with the license terms of something that you haven't had to spend time working on (and usually get without paying for it).