3 ms·

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 t

by 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/...
- cyphar 11y ago
  The fact that it would take several man-years to replicate a large GPL project is enough of a deterrence. And the freedom is quite clearly defined by the FSF: 0. The ability to run the program as you wish. 1. The ability to modify the program and run the modified program. This requires source code. 2. The freedom to distribute exact copies of the software and source code. 3. The freedom to distribute modified copies of the software and source code. The GPL ensures that those freedoms are upheld for any single body of work or any works derived from that work. If someone decides to completely replace your software with an alternative, that's fine. But if it's not worth their time (hint: it usually isn't) they'll begrudgingly grant their users the freedom that you wanted them to have in the first place. The GPL does do much better than lax licenses like the MIT at both points. With an MIT license, it doesn't take any effort to make the code proprietary and thus violate both of the points you made.
  - voaie 11y ago
    > The fact that it would take several man-years to replicate a large GPL project is enough of a deterrence. So what? Proprietary softwares have said similar words enough. > The GPL ensures that those freedoms are upheld for any single body of work or any works derived from that work. Okay, this is the only big difference, the "virus". I can use MIT to fight GPL. > With an MIT license, it doesn't take any effort to make the code proprietary and thus violate both of the points you made. My two points above are mainly for GPL. For MIT, that will be: 1. Our open-source softwares are used by more and more people, welcome to contribute if you don't want to see our softwares running everywhere with bugs in your operating system. 2. Our open-source softwares are great and free of charge. 3. Welcome to use our code for your proprietary softwares, dude. There are more and more open-source developers waiting for you.

by cyphar 11y ago

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/...

cyphar 11y ago
The fact that it would take several man-years to replicate a large GPL project is enough of a deterrence. And the freedom is quite clearly defined by the FSF: 0. The ability to run the program as you wish. 1. The ability to modify the program and run the modified program. This requires source code. 2. The freedom to distribute exact copies of the software and source code. 3. The freedom to distribute modified copies of the software and source code. The GPL ensures that those freedoms are upheld for any single body of work or any works derived from that work. If someone decides to completely replace your software with an alternative, that's fine. But if it's not worth their time (hint: it usually isn't) they'll begrudgingly grant their users the freedom that you wanted them to have in the first place. The GPL does do much better than lax licenses like the MIT at both points. With an MIT license, it doesn't take any effort to make the code proprietary and thus violate both of the points you made.
- voaie 11y ago
  > The fact that it would take several man-years to replicate a large GPL project is enough of a deterrence. So what? Proprietary softwares have said similar words enough. > The GPL ensures that those freedoms are upheld for any single body of work or any works derived from that work. Okay, this is the only big difference, the "virus". I can use MIT to fight GPL. > With an MIT license, it doesn't take any effort to make the code proprietary and thus violate both of the points you made. My two points above are mainly for GPL. For MIT, that will be: 1. Our open-source softwares are used by more and more people, welcome to contribute if you don't want to see our softwares running everywhere with bugs in your operating system. 2. Our open-source softwares are great and free of charge. 3. Welcome to use our code for your proprietary softwares, dude. There are more and more open-source developers waiting for you.