4 ms·

> 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 do

> 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).
- WayneBro 11y ago
  > 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). I find your propensity for double standards amazing. These so called "enslaved users" made a choice to buy into the developers proprietary software. It's the same exact thing as developers buying into the GPL. So, if proprietary software is enslaving users, then the GPL is most definitely enslaving developers. You can argue semantics all day long....but you'd still be wrong. But anyway, I'm glad that next to nobody releases new software under GPL anymore and that the vast majority of developers prefer a license like MIT that doesn't enslave developers at all. Good luck to you!

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).

WayneBro 11y ago
> 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). I find your propensity for double standards amazing. These so called "enslaved users" made a choice to buy into the developers proprietary software. It's the same exact thing as developers buying into the GPL. So, if proprietary software is enslaving users, then the GPL is most definitely enslaving developers. You can argue semantics all day long....but you'd still be wrong. But anyway, I'm glad that next to nobody releases new software under GPL anymore and that the vast majority of developers prefer a license like MIT that doesn't enslave developers at all. Good luck to you!