5 ms·

"How is this any different than a proprietary license?" With GPL software, you get the right to modify and distribute under certain conditions. With proprietar

"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.
- tptacek 17y ago
  The GPL is tactically less free, but strategically more free. It restricts you from using software to build non-GPL software (including BSD-licensed free software), but it prevents software from being "taken private" by commercial developers. I (again) don't so much care about the ethics (BSD's just fine) as I do about the commercial impact. The GPL is far, far more author-friendly than the BSD license is.
  - halostatue 17y ago
    With the exception of your first sentence, I completely agree with what you've said. (I disagree with the first sentence on philosophical/semantic grounds that aren't really relevant to your point.) When I want to force others to share code that I have written, I will choose the GNU GPL or something very like it. If I don't care what others do with code, I will release it under a much less restrictive license.
    - loup-vaillant 17y ago
      The GPL never forced anyone to share any code. That would violate the freedom of thought (and freedoms 0 and 1 as well). Please don't be sloppy. It spread fallacies.
      - halostatue 17y ago
        Conditionally forced sharing is still forced sharing. NeXT was forced to share the Objective C compiler code with its customers because the GCC was under the GNU GPL. If NeXT had not distributed the GCC compiler and simply used it internally, the conditional sharing clause would not have kicked in. The GNU AGPL has even a lesser conditional trigger, access over a network. What neither the GNU GPL nor the GNU AGPL require under any circumstances is contribution of modifications upstream or global sharing. You are only required (when the conditions kick in) to share your source with those who use your GNU {,A}GPLed software and not restrict them from modifying and sharing the source. My shorthand statement to which you objected was incomplete, but definitely not incorrect. All forms of the GNU {,A,L}GPL have certain conditions in which you are required to make available the source and any modifications you have made to those who have obtained your software under such a license. (Of course, this also only applies to downstream authors and users; the original authors are under no such obligation.)
rick888 17y ago
"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." With proprietary license, you are given a strict set of restrictions. The same goes for GPL/AGPL licensed software. There really is no difference. They are both licenses used to restrict usage not to give you freedom. True freedom means tolerating things you don't agree with..such as commercialism.

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.
tptacek 17y ago
The GPL is tactically less free, but strategically more free. It restricts you from using software to build non-GPL software (including BSD-licensed free software), but it prevents software from being "taken private" by commercial developers. I (again) don't so much care about the ethics (BSD's just fine) as I do about the commercial impact. The GPL is far, far more author-friendly than the BSD license is.
- halostatue 17y ago
  With the exception of your first sentence, I completely agree with what you've said. (I disagree with the first sentence on philosophical/semantic grounds that aren't really relevant to your point.) When I want to force others to share code that I have written, I will choose the GNU GPL or something very like it. If I don't care what others do with code, I will release it under a much less restrictive license.
  - loup-vaillant 17y ago
    The GPL never forced anyone to share any code. That would violate the freedom of thought (and freedoms 0 and 1 as well). Please don't be sloppy. It spread fallacies.
    - halostatue 17y ago
      Conditionally forced sharing is still forced sharing. NeXT was forced to share the Objective C compiler code with its customers because the GCC was under the GNU GPL. If NeXT had not distributed the GCC compiler and simply used it internally, the conditional sharing clause would not have kicked in. The GNU AGPL has even a lesser conditional trigger, access over a network. What neither the GNU GPL nor the GNU AGPL require under any circumstances is contribution of modifications upstream or global sharing. You are only required (when the conditions kick in) to share your source with those who use your GNU {,A}GPLed software and not restrict them from modifying and sharing the source. My shorthand statement to which you objected was incomplete, but definitely not incorrect. All forms of the GNU {,A,L}GPL have certain conditions in which you are required to make available the source and any modifications you have made to those who have obtained your software under such a license. (Of course, this also only applies to downstream authors and users; the original authors are under no such obligation.)

rick888 17y ago

"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." With proprietary license, you are given a strict set of restrictions. The same goes for GPL/AGPL licensed software. There really is no difference. They are both licenses used to restrict usage not to give you freedom. True freedom means tolerating things you don't agree with..such as commercialism.