5 ms·

Most people who are seriously involved in open source know that GPL is ironically one of the least free licenses. So, basically, if any company wants to incorpo

Most people who are seriously involved in open source know that GPL is ironically one of the least free licenses. So, basically, if any company wants to incorporate a GPL product into their project for distribution, they would have to essentially make their entire project's source code public also under GPL - Which is a completely undesirable thing to do for any company. The bad part about GPL is that it applies to everyone except the licence owner. GPL is just the FSF's way of saying f* you to companies who didn't bother to read up on what GPL actually means. It doesn't actually fulfil its purpose as an open source license - It just puts all the leverage in the hands of the license owner. Hypothetically, if the GPL also applied to the creator of the GPL product THEN it would be fair - But that's not possible because the creator would never sue themselves for breaching their own GPL.

EvanAnderson 10y ago
Nobody forces anyone to modify and distribute GPL'd software. If you don't like the terms of the license don't agree to it. Clarification: If you don't agree with the GPL you also don't get to redistribute code licensed under its terms. Don't redistribute GPL'd code and somehow expect to not be bound by the license. If you don't like the GPL and don't agree w/ its terms that's fine, just don't redistribute GPL'd code then.
- delinka 10y ago
  If you don't like the terms of the license, don't use code licensed under that license. You can't just download GPL'd code, disagree with the license, and continue using the code in a manner incompatible with that license.
  - EvanAnderson 10y ago
    I'll clarify: Implicit in my "don't agree to it" was "you don't get to distribute it". I'm not attempting to say that one can "disagree" with the GPL yet still distribute code that's licensed under its terms.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    GPL specifies no duties for those who use software, just for those who "propagate" software.
1024core 10y ago
> Most people who are seriously involved in open source know that GPL is ironically one of the least free licenses. That's one way of looking at it. But another way is that GPL increases the freedom (by pulling contributions back into the open source), instead of limiting it, which is what would happen if no user was obligated to contribute back. It's about the possibilities, not limits, as some would say. I've been around long enough (since the days Stallman introduced GPL) and do note a causal relationship between GPL and the blossoming of OSS. In no other field do you have people freely giving their endeavors back to the public, like GPL does.
zizee 10y ago
> GPL is ironically one of the least free licenses This is a common misunderstanding as you are talking from the perspective of a publisher, rather than that of an End User. GPL is about enforcing the rights of End Users, not Publishers. So, from a End Users perspective, GPL is more free than say MIT as it gives the end user the freedom to look at and change the code of software that they are running. This takes away the freedom of the publisher to keep code secret. MIT provides more rights to a Publisher than the End User as it allows the publisher to do pretty much whatever they want, but removes freedom to look and modify code from the end user. It is all a matter of perspective, wherein lies the confusion.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  > MIT [...] removes freedom to look and modify code from the end user. Er, what? What's stopping the end user from just downloading the source code? The MIT license applies to them, too. Sure, they aren't guaranteed the source code of a derived work, but they are informed about the origin of the MIT-licensed source code (per the terms of the MIT license). The problem with distinguishing between "publisher" and "end user" here is that - under the free software and open source philosophies - the two roles are one and the same. Anyone end user can be a publisher. It's thus nonsensical to claim that the MIT licenses (and other non-copyleft free software licenses) themselves somehow "remove" freedom from anyone.
  - zizee 10y ago
    > What's stopping the end user from just downloading the source code? Ah, the ambiguities of the english language! You are talking about the original code, whereas I am talking about the derived work. If the Publisher of a derived work chooses to not grant permission, the End User does not have the freedom to look/modify/redistribute the code of software derived from MIT licensed work. > "publisher" and "end user" ... under the free software and open source philosophies - the two roles are one and the same This is incorrect. Whilst it is true that sometimes the same person is performing both roles, the the roles can be mutually exclusive. I can use a piece of GPL'd software without publishing it. I do it all the time with Linux. The GPL is about protecting a person using the software as an End User (not "use" as in using it to create a derived work). The GPL gives freedoms to one role, and takes from the other. Your statement: > Sure, they aren't guaranteed the source code of a derived work Is not compatible with: > It's thus nonsensical to claim that the MIT licenses ... "remove" freedom from anyone. It is clear to me that the ability for an End User to inspect, modify and redistribute the software that they are using is more free than not being able to inspect modify or redistribute at all. Edit: It is true that the end user hasn't "lost" anything (or had it "removed"), as they never had the thing before the derived work was published, but they are certainly less free under the two hypothetical situations. Once again, the english language proves to be a tricky thing for me to wield, not matter how much care I take!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davexunit 10y ago
>if the GPL also applied to the creator of the GPL product THEN it would be fair That's not how copyright works, though, and the GPL, for better or worse, works within the framework of copyright law. The author may choose to distribute under any license they wish, perhaps multiple licenses, or perhaps give different terms to different people.

EvanAnderson 10y ago

Nobody forces anyone to modify and distribute GPL'd software. If you don't like the terms of the license don't agree to it. Clarification: If you don't agree with the GPL you also don't get to redistribute code licensed under its terms. Don't redistribute GPL'd code and somehow expect to not be bound by the license. If you don't like the GPL and don't agree w/ its terms that's fine, just don't redistribute GPL'd code then.

delinka 10y ago
If you don't like the terms of the license, don't use code licensed under that license. You can't just download GPL'd code, disagree with the license, and continue using the code in a manner incompatible with that license.
- EvanAnderson 10y ago
  I'll clarify: Implicit in my "don't agree to it" was "you don't get to distribute it". I'm not attempting to say that one can "disagree" with the GPL yet still distribute code that's licensed under its terms.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  GPL specifies no duties for those who use software, just for those who "propagate" software.

1024core 10y ago

> Most people who are seriously involved in open source know that GPL is ironically one of the least free licenses. That's one way of looking at it. But another way is that GPL increases the freedom (by pulling contributions back into the open source), instead of limiting it, which is what would happen if no user was obligated to contribute back. It's about the possibilities, not limits, as some would say. I've been around long enough (since the days Stallman introduced GPL) and do note a causal relationship between GPL and the blossoming of OSS. In no other field do you have people freely giving their endeavors back to the public, like GPL does.

zizee 10y ago

> GPL is ironically one of the least free licenses This is a common misunderstanding as you are talking from the perspective of a publisher, rather than that of an End User. GPL is about enforcing the rights of End Users, not Publishers. So, from a End Users perspective, GPL is more free than say MIT as it gives the end user the freedom to look at and change the code of software that they are running. This takes away the freedom of the publisher to keep code secret. MIT provides more rights to a Publisher than the End User as it allows the publisher to do pretty much whatever they want, but removes freedom to look and modify code from the end user. It is all a matter of perspective, wherein lies the confusion.

yellowapple 10y ago
> MIT [...] removes freedom to look and modify code from the end user. Er, what? What's stopping the end user from just downloading the source code? The MIT license applies to them, too. Sure, they aren't guaranteed the source code of a derived work, but they are informed about the origin of the MIT-licensed source code (per the terms of the MIT license). The problem with distinguishing between "publisher" and "end user" here is that - under the free software and open source philosophies - the two roles are one and the same. Anyone end user can be a publisher. It's thus nonsensical to claim that the MIT licenses (and other non-copyleft free software licenses) themselves somehow "remove" freedom from anyone.
- zizee 10y ago
  > What's stopping the end user from just downloading the source code? Ah, the ambiguities of the english language! You are talking about the original code, whereas I am talking about the derived work. If the Publisher of a derived work chooses to not grant permission, the End User does not have the freedom to look/modify/redistribute the code of software derived from MIT licensed work. > "publisher" and "end user" ... under the free software and open source philosophies - the two roles are one and the same This is incorrect. Whilst it is true that sometimes the same person is performing both roles, the the roles can be mutually exclusive. I can use a piece of GPL'd software without publishing it. I do it all the time with Linux. The GPL is about protecting a person using the software as an End User (not "use" as in using it to create a derived work). The GPL gives freedoms to one role, and takes from the other. Your statement: > Sure, they aren't guaranteed the source code of a derived work Is not compatible with: > It's thus nonsensical to claim that the MIT licenses ... "remove" freedom from anyone. It is clear to me that the ability for an End User to inspect, modify and redistribute the software that they are using is more free than not being able to inspect modify or redistribute at all. Edit: It is true that the end user hasn't "lost" anything (or had it "removed"), as they never had the thing before the derived work was published, but they are certainly less free under the two hypothetical situations. Once again, the english language proves to be a tricky thing for me to wield, not matter how much care I take!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

davexunit 10y ago

>if the GPL also applied to the creator of the GPL product THEN it would be fair That's not how copyright works, though, and the GPL, for better or worse, works within the framework of copyright law. The author may choose to distribute under any license they wish, perhaps multiple licenses, or perhaps give different terms to different people.