6 ms·

You can't "freely redistribute" it though. You have to comply with the viral decidedly non-freeing provisions.

mjg59 10y ago
You can redistribute it as much as you want, providing you permit recipients to do the same thing. Entire industries have found this to be completely reasonable.
rbanffy 10y ago
The only freedom you give up by using the GPL is the freedom to screw your users over by denying them access to the source code. All you are demanded is to let others enjoy the freedom you enjoy. That, surely, isn't too much to ask.
- vesinisa 10y ago
  Meh, hardware vendors routinely ignore GPL, and for the money it takes to sue them in court you could in most cases reverse engineer their drivers and write them for scratch.
  - joseluisq 10y ago
    Yeah, NVIDIA is an "example" of that.
blihp 10y ago
While I can appreciate that point of view (i.e. as a vendor), the definition does depend on whose POV you are looking at it from. From an end-user (individual or business) POV, the GPL is absolutely 'freely redistributable' what you're talking about is your inability to limit that ability. That's the GPL doing its job.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  > That's the GPL doing its job. It also makes it really hard to earn a living with actual software (not services) that depends on GPL.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Buy commercial licenses from authors of GPL code, so they will earn something too.
    - type0 10y ago
      It is astonishing how many people don't know that they could do it.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      I can see how that works for code that has zero compile-time dependencies on other copyleft software. I.e. a very limited usecase. Or am I getting something wrong?
  - blihp 10y ago
    Yes, you're absolutely correct. The GPL, and resulting GPL'd software, does not exist for the benefit of commercial software vendors. While some business models are viable under it, that's a side-effect rather than an objective of it.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      i.e. it's condemned to be a hobby for almost everyone involved, besides some key players who can live off of donations or those who sell services based on mostly other people's software.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Selling services 'based on mostly other people's software' is not some crime or bad thing. Servicing cars or houses made by other people is an honorable profession. So are software services. If the thing needs servicing, then I salute those who stand ready to do the dirty work.

mjg59 10y ago

You can redistribute it as much as you want, providing you permit recipients to do the same thing. Entire industries have found this to be completely reasonable.

rbanffy 10y ago

The only freedom you give up by using the GPL is the freedom to screw your users over by denying them access to the source code. All you are demanded is to let others enjoy the freedom you enjoy. That, surely, isn't too much to ask.

vesinisa 10y ago
Meh, hardware vendors routinely ignore GPL, and for the money it takes to sue them in court you could in most cases reverse engineer their drivers and write them for scratch.
- joseluisq 10y ago
  Yeah, NVIDIA is an "example" of that.

blihp 10y ago

While I can appreciate that point of view (i.e. as a vendor), the definition does depend on whose POV you are looking at it from. From an end-user (individual or business) POV, the GPL is absolutely 'freely redistributable' what you're talking about is your inability to limit that ability. That's the GPL doing its job.

m_mueller 10y ago
> That's the GPL doing its job. It also makes it really hard to earn a living with actual software (not services) that depends on GPL.
- lisivka 10y ago
  Buy commercial licenses from authors of GPL code, so they will earn something too.
  - type0 10y ago
    It is astonishing how many people don't know that they could do it.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    I can see how that works for code that has zero compile-time dependencies on other copyleft software. I.e. a very limited usecase. Or am I getting something wrong?
- blihp 10y ago
  Yes, you're absolutely correct. The GPL, and resulting GPL'd software, does not exist for the benefit of commercial software vendors. While some business models are viable under it, that's a side-effect rather than an objective of it.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    i.e. it's condemned to be a hobby for almost everyone involved, besides some key players who can live off of donations or those who sell services based on mostly other people's software.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Selling services 'based on mostly other people's software' is not some crime or bad thing. Servicing cars or houses made by other people is an honorable profession. So are software services. If the thing needs servicing, then I salute those who stand ready to do the dirty work.