4 ms·

Proprietary software companies trap you, so you utilize GPL to trap more lazy programmers? Selfish people are always selfish, lazy ones are still lazy. I don't

by voaie 11y ago

Proprietary software companies trap you, so you utilize GPL to trap more lazy programmers? Selfish people are always selfish, lazy ones are still lazy. I don't like this model.

justinlardinois 11y ago
While I'm not a fan of the GPL and its viral nature either either, the kind of trapping you're referring to is not at all the same thing. If GCC was the only C compiler in the world, my Apache licensed (or hell, public domain) C project wouldn't really be "trapped" by GCC being GPL licensed, because that license allows me and my users unfettered access to GCC whenever we want, so there's no one who can't access compilation of my project, now or ever.
- voaie 11y ago
  Your example does not solve this problem: You may rely on some excellent GPLed softwares, but you want to distribute it with some close-source softwares. Then you might become the lazy programmers. I can see how GPL fans hate close-source software, but they can also choose another license, so programmers could share their works easier, also get more ideas from non-GPL fans. ADDED: This same problem originates from close-source software, so GPL is another extreme I don't like. People from both sides still continue to develop great softwares, but what about MIT/Apache/BSD/...-licensed softwares? I choose the golden mean. I don't mean GPL is a bad thing, I just don't want to blindly support it. Times are changing.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    The world of free software would not exist today without the GPL. If everyone had used lax licenses, companies would've made proprietary forks and driven free software out of existence. Also, choosing MIT because "it's the middle ground" is a middle of the road fallacy. The GPL ensures users will always have freedom when using the software. Lax licenses provides no such assurance and proprietary software obviously doesn't provide anyone freedom. The purpose of the GPL is to halt malicious companies from using free software to mistreat users. The middle ground isn't better in this case.
    - voaie 11y ago
      Even if the source is guarded by GPL, the idea behind the source can be copied and represented in another form. Then the freedom defined by GPL is obscure to me. MIT licenses saves me from time-consuming copycat situations. Yeah, I am lazy, but I'm more willing to share (hard-working now) if you don't push me to extreme. I know the pattent laws in the past were somewhat ridiculous compared to what they are today (though still ridiculous sometimes), so GPL was/is really great then, just like the Creative Commons licenses.
      - justinlardinois 11y ago
        Free software licenses have to do with copyright law, not patent law. And the only major change in copyright law in the last few decades was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which isn't super relevant to the issues in free software.
        voaie 11y ago
        Oh yes, thank you. I always relate free software to patent trolls, because software patents have huge impact on software development. When I relate GPL to Creative Commons, I mean they are good role models for defending legal rights and interests.
      - cyphar 11y ago
        Patents and copyright are not related. But yes, software patents are still ridiculous, and getting more so. As for "the idea behind the source". Feel free to take the "idea behind the source" of FFmpeg or VLC or Linux. The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom. As for "but I'm a poor developer, etc" then you have two choices: 1. Use the GPL code and comply with the GPL. This is actually a good thing if you care about your users' freedom. 2. Don't use the GPL code. Simple as that. There is no third "but I want to use the GPL without complying" option.
        voaie 11y ago
        > The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom. Still, you cannot exactly explain what the freedom is. Proprietary softwares can copy the ideas without contributing back. I know manpower is important, so another great softwares similar to FFmpeg/VLC/Linux with MIT/BSD/... licenses won't appear very soon. If your freedom just means 1. Hey, just look at our GPL-licensed softwares, you propietary softwares can't use our code directly without any contribution. 2. Everyone should sell services, not code, for a more open world. then I've already understood. And I don't believe GPL can do much better than MIT/...

by voaie 11y ago

Proprietary software companies trap you, so you utilize GPL to trap more lazy programmers? Selfish people are always selfish, lazy ones are still lazy. I don't like this model.

justinlardinois 11y ago

While I'm not a fan of the GPL and its viral nature either either, the kind of trapping you're referring to is not at all the same thing. If GCC was the only C compiler in the world, my Apache licensed (or hell, public domain) C project wouldn't really be "trapped" by GCC being GPL licensed, because that license allows me and my users unfettered access to GCC whenever we want, so there's no one who can't access compilation of my project, now or ever.

voaie 11y ago
Your example does not solve this problem: You may rely on some excellent GPLed softwares, but you want to distribute it with some close-source softwares. Then you might become the lazy programmers. I can see how GPL fans hate close-source software, but they can also choose another license, so programmers could share their works easier, also get more ideas from non-GPL fans. ADDED: This same problem originates from close-source software, so GPL is another extreme I don't like. People from both sides still continue to develop great softwares, but what about MIT/Apache/BSD/...-licensed softwares? I choose the golden mean. I don't mean GPL is a bad thing, I just don't want to blindly support it. Times are changing.
- cyphar 11y ago
  The world of free software would not exist today without the GPL. If everyone had used lax licenses, companies would've made proprietary forks and driven free software out of existence. Also, choosing MIT because "it's the middle ground" is a middle of the road fallacy. The GPL ensures users will always have freedom when using the software. Lax licenses provides no such assurance and proprietary software obviously doesn't provide anyone freedom. The purpose of the GPL is to halt malicious companies from using free software to mistreat users. The middle ground isn't better in this case.
  - voaie 11y ago
    Even if the source is guarded by GPL, the idea behind the source can be copied and represented in another form. Then the freedom defined by GPL is obscure to me. MIT licenses saves me from time-consuming copycat situations. Yeah, I am lazy, but I'm more willing to share (hard-working now) if you don't push me to extreme. I know the pattent laws in the past were somewhat ridiculous compared to what they are today (though still ridiculous sometimes), so GPL was/is really great then, just like the Creative Commons licenses.
    - justinlardinois 11y ago
      Free software licenses have to do with copyright law, not patent law. And the only major change in copyright law in the last few decades was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which isn't super relevant to the issues in free software.
      - voaie 11y ago
        Oh yes, thank you. I always relate free software to patent trolls, because software patents have huge impact on software development. When I relate GPL to Creative Commons, I mean they are good role models for defending legal rights and interests.
    - cyphar 11y ago
      Patents and copyright are not related. But yes, software patents are still ridiculous, and getting more so. As for "the idea behind the source". Feel free to take the "idea behind the source" of FFmpeg or VLC or Linux. The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom. As for "but I'm a poor developer, etc" then you have two choices: 1. Use the GPL code and comply with the GPL. This is actually a good thing if you care about your users' freedom. 2. Don't use the GPL code. Simple as that. There is no third "but I want to use the GPL without complying" option.
      - voaie 11y ago
        > The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom. Still, you cannot exactly explain what the freedom is. Proprietary softwares can copy the ideas without contributing back. I know manpower is important, so another great softwares similar to FFmpeg/VLC/Linux with MIT/BSD/... licenses won't appear very soon. If your freedom just means 1. Hey, just look at our GPL-licensed softwares, you propietary softwares can't use our code directly without any contribution. 2. Everyone should sell services, not code, for a more open world. then I've already understood. And I don't believe GPL can do much better than MIT/...