5 ms·

Define "significant". Because in a sense I agree: these restriction have profound implications. In the other sense, however, I disagree: the restrictions you sp

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.

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.