6 ms·

"Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?" I find it ironic that people would associate the GNU with freedom, when it's anything but. Th

by rick888 17y ago

"Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?" I find it ironic that people would associate the GNU with freedom, when it's anything but. The AGPL and GPL is about giving out your source code and telling people exactly how you can (and most importantly cannot) use it. How is this any different than a proprietary license? I'm fine with people being against commercialization of their work, but I just wish they would stop trying to pass it off as freedom. This is why I only support the BSD license. Yes, people may make "more money than me" on my own work, but if that's the case, they obviously have better ideas than I do..and deserve the success. It seems like the FSF and Stallman want companies to get confused and use GNU software in their proprietary application. By calling it "free", some people do get confused and use it..and it usually ends up on lawsuits that require the company to open up the source of their app and/or the hiring of a "GNU compliance officer".

Maro 17y ago
You're implying "commercialization" means "closed source". GPL'd as well as AGPL'd software can be sold. Others can download it, modify it, sell it as well, and make a lot of money off it. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you make the source available under the same license it was made available for you.
- rick888 17y ago
  "You're implying "commercialization" means "closed source". GPL'd as well as AGPL'd software can be sold. Others can download it, modify it, sell it as well, and make a lot of money off it. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you make the source available under the same license it was made available for you." Right. So legally, the person you sold it to can 1) re-package it and re-sell it 2) copy it and send it off to all of their friends (and you can't do anything to stop them) 3) Most people in the community detest commercialism. I would never want to base a business off of a license like this. It's just asking for trouble.
tspiteri 17y ago
"How is this any different than a proprietary license?" With GPL software, you get the right to modify and distribute under certain conditions. With proprietary software you do not have those rights at all.
- halostatue 17y ago
  It's not true that you don't get those rights with proprietary software. It depends on the license, as always. The disconnect the GP has is that the GNU GPL is based on freedom, yet it places significant restrictions on what you do with the software under the GPL. It's a fine license, but calling it "more free" is nonsense.
  - loup-vaillant 17y ago
    Define "significant". Because in a sense I agree: these restriction have profound implications. In the other sense, however, I disagree: the restrictions you speak of don't unreasonably limit your freedom. Remember the four freedom free software gives you: (0) running it for any purpose, (1) modifying it, (2) re-distributing it as is, and (3) re-distributing it modified. With GPL, freedoms (2) and (3) can only be enjoyed at one condition: giving to those who receive the software the exact same freedoms you enjoyed. In other words, you shall not make your users less free than you are already. This is a long standing principle: one's freedom shall stop at others'. I argue that the GPL merely forces you to respect that principle (it will be very hard to convince me otherwise). If you don't like that, I will be forced to question your morality.
    - halostatue 17y ago
      Compared to the BSD-family of licences, the GNU GPL is less free, as it restricts what one entity can do with code granted by another. I'm not saying this is a bad thing; this is exactly what the GNU GPL is written to do: enforcing a share-and-share-alike ethos for a given set of code. I do think that the rhetoric (including the "four freedoms") is nonsense that could be left by the wayside with no harm, and possibly even improve it. That's the part about the GNU GPL and the FSF that I can't stand: don't try to tell me that this is about freedom. Tell me that this is about building a base of code that requires share-and-share-alike behaviour and that you're doing it because you think it will produce a richer environment. I may not agree with you, but at least I'll respect your stance. If I want to restrict others use of my software in a way that they have to grant others the exact same rights that I granted them in the first place, then I will happily pick the GNU GPL or some other license that achieves the same thing, because that's what I want in that case. If I don't want to restrict others use of my software in any way, I will pick something much less restrictive (such as the MIT or BSD licences). If I want something in-between, I will choose an in-between license like the MPL or the LGPL. But in no way will I pretend that my application of restrictions is increasing freedom. It's the restrictions I'm choosing for the software I'm writing. No more, no less.
joe_the_user 17y ago
The GPL has absolutely no restrictions on how you can use the code. You can take the code and write any application you want. You insert or delete any combination of characters anywhere in any of the files and share these changes with anyone in the world. No restrictions. What the GPL "restricts" is your ability to restrict others' use of the code. The only thing it stops you from doing is changing the code and distributing that changed code with license that restricts others' use of that code. That's it - this is a restriction on a person or corporation's legal ability to create a license. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability change the code. This is pretty much paraphrasing the GPL itself, I know, but still..
- blasdel 17y ago
  Yes, the GPL is as you describe. But the AGPL is anything but — It takes away Freedom Zero: The freedom to run the program for any purpose
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    It's better overall if you and all your users have this limited form of freedom zero, when the alternative is that only you have it and your users have nothing.

by rick888 17y ago

Maro 17y ago

You're implying "commercialization" means "closed source". GPL'd as well as AGPL'd software can be sold. Others can download it, modify it, sell it as well, and make a lot of money off it. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you make the source available under the same license it was made available for you.

rick888 17y ago
"You're implying "commercialization" means "closed source". GPL'd as well as AGPL'd software can be sold. Others can download it, modify it, sell it as well, and make a lot of money off it. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you make the source available under the same license it was made available for you." Right. So legally, the person you sold it to can 1) re-package it and re-sell it 2) copy it and send it off to all of their friends (and you can't do anything to stop them) 3) Most people in the community detest commercialism. I would never want to base a business off of a license like this. It's just asking for trouble.

tspiteri 17y ago

"How is this any different than a proprietary license?" With GPL software, you get the right to modify and distribute under certain conditions. With proprietary software you do not have those rights at all.

halostatue 17y ago
It's not true that you don't get those rights with proprietary software. It depends on the license, as always. The disconnect the GP has is that the GNU GPL is based on freedom, yet it places significant restrictions on what you do with the software under the GPL. It's a fine license, but calling it "more free" is nonsense.
- loup-vaillant 17y ago
  Define "significant". Because in a sense I agree: these restriction have profound implications. In the other sense, however, I disagree: the restrictions you speak of don't unreasonably limit your freedom. Remember the four freedom free software gives you: (0) running it for any purpose, (1) modifying it, (2) re-distributing it as is, and (3) re-distributing it modified. With GPL, freedoms (2) and (3) can only be enjoyed at one condition: giving to those who receive the software the exact same freedoms you enjoyed. In other words, you shall not make your users less free than you are already. This is a long standing principle: one's freedom shall stop at others'. I argue that the GPL merely forces you to respect that principle (it will be very hard to convince me otherwise). If you don't like that, I will be forced to question your morality.
  - halostatue 17y ago
    Compared to the BSD-family of licences, the GNU GPL is less free, as it restricts what one entity can do with code granted by another. I'm not saying this is a bad thing; this is exactly what the GNU GPL is written to do: enforcing a share-and-share-alike ethos for a given set of code. I do think that the rhetoric (including the "four freedoms") is nonsense that could be left by the wayside with no harm, and possibly even improve it. That's the part about the GNU GPL and the FSF that I can't stand: don't try to tell me that this is about freedom. Tell me that this is about building a base of code that requires share-and-share-alike behaviour and that you're doing it because you think it will produce a richer environment. I may not agree with you, but at least I'll respect your stance. If I want to restrict others use of my software in a way that they have to grant others the exact same rights that I granted them in the first place, then I will happily pick the GNU GPL or some other license that achieves the same thing, because that's what I want in that case. If I don't want to restrict others use of my software in any way, I will pick something much less restrictive (such as the MIT or BSD licences). If I want something in-between, I will choose an in-between license like the MPL or the LGPL. But in no way will I pretend that my application of restrictions is increasing freedom. It's the restrictions I'm choosing for the software I'm writing. No more, no less.

joe_the_user 17y ago

The GPL has absolutely no restrictions on how you can use the code. You can take the code and write any application you want. You insert or delete any combination of characters anywhere in any of the files and share these changes with anyone in the world. No restrictions. What the GPL "restricts" is your ability to restrict others' use of the code. The only thing it stops you from doing is changing the code and distributing that changed code with license that restricts others' use of that code. That's it - this is a restriction on a person or corporation's legal ability to create a license. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability change the code. This is pretty much paraphrasing the GPL itself, I know, but still..

blasdel 17y ago
Yes, the GPL is as you describe. But the AGPL is anything but — It takes away Freedom Zero: The freedom to run the program for any purpose
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  It's better overall if you and all your users have this limited form of freedom zero, when the alternative is that only you have it and your users have nothing.