4 ms·

What use is the GPL to someone who is not a developer? Serious, non-snarky question. If you don't have the ability to modify or interpret the source code due t

What use is the GPL to someone who is not a developer? Serious, non-snarky question. If you don't have the ability to modify or interpret the source code due to lack of time or knowledge, what exactly is the benefit?

davexunit 10y ago
What use is the freedom of the press to someone who isn't a journalist?
- GeoffKnauth 10y ago
  It's a benefit to readers / citizens to have information that is not completely controlled by a government, party or corporation.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    Correct! And it's a benefit to users to have software that is not completely controlled by a government, party or corporation.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      <post type="devils-advocate"> Instead, it's controlled by an unaccountable mass of people who may or may not be working with their best interests in mind. Instead of abusing a user's wallet, they instead abuse their time, attention, or data. Off the top of my head, Ubuntu's Amazon integration, Freedesktop's push to Systemd all the things, Firefox's new page ads... </post> The difference between a corporation and a large FOSS project is limited to their goals and probably values. Both are generally subject to a central figurehead or committee who makes all the decisions and chooses how the project will evolve. I can't go propose a change to the Linux kernel unless Linus likes it. I could maintain my own fork, but it would consume nearly all of my free time. It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical.
      - catdog 10y ago
        > I can't go propose a change to the Linux kernel unless Linus likes it. I could maintain my own fork, but it would consume nearly all of my free time. But if that change is not that big or fundamental you can still apply a patch with relative ease. Thats already huge compared to most proprietary Software. > It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical. I disagree. It may not be always that easy in practice to take advantage of your freedom but that makes it not worthless. Maybe it's too much work for you to maintain a (partial) fork of the Linux kernel but if you find yourself a group of like minded people it may be perfectly possible. Free software also is by far unable to magically fix all of our societies problems but it is one tiny part of making the world better.
catnaroek 10y ago
Free software fosters collaboration. You don't only benefit from being able to study and modify the source code yourself. You also benefit from others being able to do it. Because then they can help you.
nanny 10y ago
The benefit is that the Four Freedoms[1] are preserved. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Freedom 0 exists with BSD code, 1-3 are worthless as a non developer. So I'll ask again: What's the benefit to someone who isn't a developer?
  - nanny 10y ago
    You're entirely missing the point of what freedom means. The point is that you have the freedom to exercise 1-3 if you choose to do so. It doesn't matter if the user isn't currently a developer, and it doesn't matter if there is any practical benefit. The freedoms themselves are inherently valuable.
  - krapp 10y ago
    To me, the free software philosophy assumes that every user is a developer, or at least, it asserts that any user should be capable of comprehending and modifying any code that runs on their system, and defends their right to do so. The distinction between the two ("user" and "developer") exists because proprietary software and commercial software created a fundamental disconnect between the processes of ownership and development, and because computers have gotten too complex for any single person to fully comprehend. But it's not a distinction that should exist.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Or, it exists because there are infinitely more people who use software than even know how it works. Let's say that tomorrow, society gets together and mandates that any and all computer code is subject to the GPL. Do you maintain that the user/developer distinction goes away? I don't think it does.
      - 10y ago
ex_amazon_sde 10y ago
By receiving GPLed software (with sources), compared to closed-down software that contains non-copyleft code? - No lock-in, no artificial obsolescence. This is huge. - Better security: Much lesser risk of backdoors, homecalling "telemetries", weakened crypto, adware - Ability to pay 3rd parties to perform auditing, bugfixes, improve compatibility, even resurrect dead projects if needed
- Karunamon 10y ago
  If I don't know how to interpret and write code, the first thing is meaningless to me. If I don't check every single compiler and binary I ever run, the second thing is meaningless (open source malware is still malware), and I think Heartbleed is a great counterpoint to Linus' law. Availability of code does not change people's specializations or give them more hours in a day. The last one is probably the only fair point, but then again, incompatible data formats happen among open source projects too.
  - piaste 10y ago
    You only need _one_ power user to disable the lock-in mechanism or to discover the security holes. After that, every user benefits even if they themselves cannot do such things. Of course open source projects also suffer from bugs and incompatibilities, that's obvious and uninteresting. The point is that when you run into one of those, you have options available other than calling Larry Ellison and begging him to please fix your problems.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      I only need __one__ power user (or employee) to do the same thing with the proprietary software. It happens all the time.
      - piaste 10y ago
        Yeeeeeah, that's kinda like saying you can get your drugs from a police evidence locker. You only need __one__ burglar or rotten cop! It happens all the time! Why do we need dealers or legal distribution anyway? Plus you're contradicting your own argument. First you state that open source doesn't matter unless you can personally read and modify the code. Now you state that you're fine with proprietary software, because you only need one of the company's employees to remove lock-ins and fix security holes for you. Which one is it? Do you require being able to solve problems yourself, or can you rely on others?
robotresearcher 10y ago
You can hire someone to interpret it for you if you need to. For example, hiring a specialist to do a security audit, a task which is beyond the normal expertise of most developers.

davexunit 10y ago

What use is the freedom of the press to someone who isn't a journalist?

GeoffKnauth 10y ago
It's a benefit to readers / citizens to have information that is not completely controlled by a government, party or corporation.
- davexunit 10y ago
  Correct! And it's a benefit to users to have software that is not completely controlled by a government, party or corporation.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    <post type="devils-advocate"> Instead, it's controlled by an unaccountable mass of people who may or may not be working with their best interests in mind. Instead of abusing a user's wallet, they instead abuse their time, attention, or data. Off the top of my head, Ubuntu's Amazon integration, Freedesktop's push to Systemd all the things, Firefox's new page ads... </post> The difference between a corporation and a large FOSS project is limited to their goals and probably values. Both are generally subject to a central figurehead or committee who makes all the decisions and chooses how the project will evolve. I can't go propose a change to the Linux kernel unless Linus likes it. I could maintain my own fork, but it would consume nearly all of my free time. It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical.
    - catdog 10y ago
      > I can't go propose a change to the Linux kernel unless Linus likes it. I could maintain my own fork, but it would consume nearly all of my free time. But if that change is not that big or fundamental you can still apply a patch with relative ease. Thats already huge compared to most proprietary Software. > It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical. I disagree. It may not be always that easy in practice to take advantage of your freedom but that makes it not worthless. Maybe it's too much work for you to maintain a (partial) fork of the Linux kernel but if you find yourself a group of like minded people it may be perfectly possible. Free software also is by far unable to magically fix all of our societies problems but it is one tiny part of making the world better.

catnaroek 10y ago

Free software fosters collaboration. You don't only benefit from being able to study and modify the source code yourself. You also benefit from others being able to do it. Because then they can help you.

nanny 10y ago

The benefit is that the Four Freedoms[1] are preserved. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Karunamon 10y ago
Freedom 0 exists with BSD code, 1-3 are worthless as a non developer. So I'll ask again: What's the benefit to someone who isn't a developer?
- nanny 10y ago
  You're entirely missing the point of what freedom means. The point is that you have the freedom to exercise 1-3 if you choose to do so. It doesn't matter if the user isn't currently a developer, and it doesn't matter if there is any practical benefit. The freedoms themselves are inherently valuable.
- krapp 10y ago
  To me, the free software philosophy assumes that every user is a developer, or at least, it asserts that any user should be capable of comprehending and modifying any code that runs on their system, and defends their right to do so. The distinction between the two ("user" and "developer") exists because proprietary software and commercial software created a fundamental disconnect between the processes of ownership and development, and because computers have gotten too complex for any single person to fully comprehend. But it's not a distinction that should exist.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Or, it exists because there are infinitely more people who use software than even know how it works. Let's say that tomorrow, society gets together and mandates that any and all computer code is subject to the GPL. Do you maintain that the user/developer distinction goes away? I don't think it does.
    - 10y ago

ex_amazon_sde 10y ago

By receiving GPLed software (with sources), compared to closed-down software that contains non-copyleft code? - No lock-in, no artificial obsolescence. This is huge. - Better security: Much lesser risk of backdoors, homecalling "telemetries", weakened crypto, adware - Ability to pay 3rd parties to perform auditing, bugfixes, improve compatibility, even resurrect dead projects if needed

Karunamon 10y ago
If I don't know how to interpret and write code, the first thing is meaningless to me. If I don't check every single compiler and binary I ever run, the second thing is meaningless (open source malware is still malware), and I think Heartbleed is a great counterpoint to Linus' law. Availability of code does not change people's specializations or give them more hours in a day. The last one is probably the only fair point, but then again, incompatible data formats happen among open source projects too.
- piaste 10y ago
  You only need _one_ power user to disable the lock-in mechanism or to discover the security holes. After that, every user benefits even if they themselves cannot do such things. Of course open source projects also suffer from bugs and incompatibilities, that's obvious and uninteresting. The point is that when you run into one of those, you have options available other than calling Larry Ellison and begging him to please fix your problems.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    I only need __one__ power user (or employee) to do the same thing with the proprietary software. It happens all the time.
    - piaste 10y ago
      Yeeeeeah, that's kinda like saying you can get your drugs from a police evidence locker. You only need __one__ burglar or rotten cop! It happens all the time! Why do we need dealers or legal distribution anyway? Plus you're contradicting your own argument. First you state that open source doesn't matter unless you can personally read and modify the code. Now you state that you're fine with proprietary software, because you only need one of the company's employees to remove lock-ins and fix security holes for you. Which one is it? Do you require being able to solve problems yourself, or can you rely on others?

robotresearcher 10y ago

You can hire someone to interpret it for you if you need to. For example, hiring a specialist to do a security audit, a task which is beyond the normal expertise of most developers.