4 ms·

Except that "perpetual freedom" for one group (users) also equates to "perpetual removal of freedom" for another group (developers). It doesn't seem fair to me

Except that "perpetual freedom" for one group (users) also equates to "perpetual removal of freedom" for another group (developers). It doesn't seem fair to mention one without the other, since the latter is the primary reason why many, many developers choose to not use the GPL. Also, I don't see how the person who said they don't want to get "bit" by the GPL is "Complaining about it without recognizing" anything? To begin with, it seems completely subjective. I can feel totally "bitten" by the fact that I only have one choice of cable company in my area, even though their monopoly is totally legal...but I didn't agree to any of it. Similarly, no developer really has a choice but to use GPL software if they want to live in the Linux neighborhood. (But they shouldn't complain according to you because they have the "choice" of going off on their own to re-build 20 years worth of core Unix utilities.)

cyphar 11y ago
> Except that "perpetual freedom" for one group (users) also equates to "perpetual removal of freedom" for another group (developers). Only if you redefine the word "freedom". Both developers and users have the same four fundamental freedoms. The only difference is that the developers don't have the "freedom" to enslave their users. But that's like claiming that you don't live in a free society because you can't enslave people -- just because you don't have the "freedom to enslave others" doesn't mean that you don't have freedom. > Similarly, no developer really has a choice but to use GPL software if they want to live in the Linux neighborhood. Nobody has actually explained why this is a bad thing. Is it because "developers don't want their users to have freedom"? Many companies exist that sell GPL software, so it's not a monetary thing. And your cable company analogy is flawed because the GPL doesn't force you into a monopoly. And, by the way, not all software in the "Linux neighbourhood" is under the GPL. So that's an unfair exaggeration (although I do honestly wish more of it was). > But they shouldn't complain according to you because they have the "choice" of going off on their own to re-build 20 years worth of core Unix utilities. If they don't want to contribute to a community that values user freedom, then they won't be welcome in that community. I don't understand why someone would be surprised by this.
- WayneBro 11y ago
  > Only if you redefine the word "freedom". No. The GPL removes my freedom to sell something that I've created. > The only difference is that the developers don't have the "freedom" to enslave their users. This is where I think your entire argument falls apart: Offering users the choice to buy my software is not enslaving them. If it is, then so is the GPL because it's a choice that users can buy into or not...just like the choice that the GPL offers to developers. You can't have it both ways. If commercial software "enslaves" users by simply offering the users a choice to buy the software, then the GPL must also be enslaving developers by simply offering them a predatory contract.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "The GPL removes my freedom to sell something that I've created." No it does not. You can still sell the first copy, technically and practically. You can still technically sell licenses - it is just practically made difficult because those you sell the work to can share it.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    > > Only if you redefine the word "freedom". > No. The GPL removes my freedom to sell something that I've created. That's patently false. Many companies (SUSE and RedHat come to mind) sell free software. The only difference is that you can't create a monopoly of experts in the software you wrote. The business model of free software works through selling support (such as L2, L3 and developer support that can implement features and fix bugs much faster than upstream would). > This is where I think your entire argument falls apart: Offering users the choice to buy my software is not enslaving them. The GPL allows you to sell software. That's not how free software works. I believe you may be confused by the word "free". In this context, it refers to freedom, not price. There are quite a few companies that sell free software, and it's disingenuous to claim that they don't exist. > If commercial software "enslaves" users by simply offering the users a choice to buy the software Proprietary software, and the choice to "buy software" has nothing to do with the free software movement. Again, free refers to freedom. There are several commercial free software companies. Proprietary software enslaves users by making them helpless against a developer that may mistreat the user (and the user can't do anything about it).

cyphar 11y ago

> Except that "perpetual freedom" for one group (users) also equates to "perpetual removal of freedom" for another group (developers). Only if you redefine the word "freedom". Both developers and users have the same four fundamental freedoms. The only difference is that the developers don't have the "freedom" to enslave their users. But that's like claiming that you don't live in a free society because you can't enslave people -- just because you don't have the "freedom to enslave others" doesn't mean that you don't have freedom. > Similarly, no developer really has a choice but to use GPL software if they want to live in the Linux neighborhood. Nobody has actually explained why this is a bad thing. Is it because "developers don't want their users to have freedom"? Many companies exist that sell GPL software, so it's not a monetary thing. And your cable company analogy is flawed because the GPL doesn't force you into a monopoly. And, by the way, not all software in the "Linux neighbourhood" is under the GPL. So that's an unfair exaggeration (although I do honestly wish more of it was). > But they shouldn't complain according to you because they have the "choice" of going off on their own to re-build 20 years worth of core Unix utilities. If they don't want to contribute to a community that values user freedom, then they won't be welcome in that community. I don't understand why someone would be surprised by this.

WayneBro 11y ago
> Only if you redefine the word "freedom". No. The GPL removes my freedom to sell something that I've created. > The only difference is that the developers don't have the "freedom" to enslave their users. This is where I think your entire argument falls apart: Offering users the choice to buy my software is not enslaving them. If it is, then so is the GPL because it's a choice that users can buy into or not...just like the choice that the GPL offers to developers. You can't have it both ways. If commercial software "enslaves" users by simply offering the users a choice to buy the software, then the GPL must also be enslaving developers by simply offering them a predatory contract.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "The GPL removes my freedom to sell something that I've created." No it does not. You can still sell the first copy, technically and practically. You can still technically sell licenses - it is just practically made difficult because those you sell the work to can share it.
- cyphar 11y ago
  > > Only if you redefine the word "freedom". > No. The GPL removes my freedom to sell something that I've created. That's patently false. Many companies (SUSE and RedHat come to mind) sell free software. The only difference is that you can't create a monopoly of experts in the software you wrote. The business model of free software works through selling support (such as L2, L3 and developer support that can implement features and fix bugs much faster than upstream would). > This is where I think your entire argument falls apart: Offering users the choice to buy my software is not enslaving them. The GPL allows you to sell software. That's not how free software works. I believe you may be confused by the word "free". In this context, it refers to freedom, not price. There are quite a few companies that sell free software, and it's disingenuous to claim that they don't exist. > If commercial software "enslaves" users by simply offering the users a choice to buy the software Proprietary software, and the choice to "buy software" has nothing to do with the free software movement. Again, free refers to freedom. There are several commercial free software companies. Proprietary software enslaves users by making them helpless against a developer that may mistreat the user (and the user can't do anything about it).