3 ms·

Exactly, the GPL focuses on the rights of the user, not the rights of the developer.

bbatha 10y ago
Those rights mean nothing if the user is not someone versed enough to modify the code. So in practice the rights are the rights of the developer.
- xoa 10y ago
  Incorrect, you've mistakenly conflated "in practice the rights are the rights of the original developer" with what the GPL aims to ensure, which is "in practice the rights are the rights of any developer". A user (which could be a user or an entire organization) need not possess any development skills themselves in order to hire somebody else with developer skills. I don't have a moral problem with proprietary software and think it has strengths, but the part of the core value of open source (or even simple available source, given the appropriate contractual terms[1]) could be defined as "potential for interchangeability" with respects to devs. If the original devs go in a direction that isn't desirable or for that matter got hit by a bus, there is at least the option for an individual, organization, or community sufficiently dependent or seeing sufficient value to take up the torch. Whether they have the skills directly to do it themselves is as irrelevant as whether they have the skills to maintain hardware or do building engineering or construction or whatever themselves. The ability to have a flexible and redundant market around maintaining foundational infrastructure and tooling isn't without value. 1. I personally think available source, even if only escrowed, should be flat out requirement for copyright period but that's a different discussion.
- Nursie 10y ago
  No, the GPL focusses on the rights of the user downstream of the developer, regardless of whether or not they are versed enough to be a developer, or just a tinkerer, or a kid just starting to learn about computers, or someone that can figure out enough to make that one tweak to something that's annoyed them or a user that pays a developer or... The point is the person who makes a few tweaks and distributes has to pass on that privilege.
- jimktrains2 10y ago
  Entirely false. First, if the user is someone who can modify the code, then the rights aren't just those of the original developer. Second, if the user is someone who can't, it provides them with the ability to hire someone who is, or to learn themselves. This is especially important when the original developer cannot or chooses to not support the software (at all or on a specific platform.) Take the coming y2038. For many things, the changes aren't immense, but the original developer could die in 2027 and never make them. Access to the source is crucial, even if the user doesn't think they'll need it or be able to use it themselves.
- rbanffy 10y ago
  > the user is not someone versed enough to modify the code. A good book can solve that.
dTal 10y ago
I would say rather that the GPL treats "the user" and "the developer" as one and the same, and while this is often not true in practice it is an important principle; without it, the user can never become the developer. And only a tiny fraction of users need to become developers for every user to benefit. (A distinction not unique to software, and under threat in other places as well: "no user servicable parts inside". Many might be helpless, but who could argue that enforced helplessness is a good thing?)
- dsr_ 10y ago
  The essence of the UNIX philosophy is not "make small utilities that can be fitted together with pipes" but to assume that at any moment, a user might decide to be a developer or a sysadmin and should have the tools to do that. The problems of UNIX generally come from assuming either that users are never devs and sysadmins, or that all users are devs and sysadmins.

Those rights mean nothing if the user is not someone versed enough to modify the code. So in practice the rights are the rights of the developer.

xoa 10y ago
Incorrect, you've mistakenly conflated "in practice the rights are the rights of the original developer" with what the GPL aims to ensure, which is "in practice the rights are the rights of any developer". A user (which could be a user or an entire organization) need not possess any development skills themselves in order to hire somebody else with developer skills. I don't have a moral problem with proprietary software and think it has strengths, but the part of the core value of open source (or even simple available source, given the appropriate contractual terms[1]) could be defined as "potential for interchangeability" with respects to devs. If the original devs go in a direction that isn't desirable or for that matter got hit by a bus, there is at least the option for an individual, organization, or community sufficiently dependent or seeing sufficient value to take up the torch. Whether they have the skills directly to do it themselves is as irrelevant as whether they have the skills to maintain hardware or do building engineering or construction or whatever themselves. The ability to have a flexible and redundant market around maintaining foundational infrastructure and tooling isn't without value. 1. I personally think available source, even if only escrowed, should be flat out requirement for copyright period but that's a different discussion.
Nursie 10y ago
No, the GPL focusses on the rights of the user downstream of the developer, regardless of whether or not they are versed enough to be a developer, or just a tinkerer, or a kid just starting to learn about computers, or someone that can figure out enough to make that one tweak to something that's annoyed them or a user that pays a developer or... The point is the person who makes a few tweaks and distributes has to pass on that privilege.
jimktrains2 10y ago
Entirely false. First, if the user is someone who can modify the code, then the rights aren't just those of the original developer. Second, if the user is someone who can't, it provides them with the ability to hire someone who is, or to learn themselves. This is especially important when the original developer cannot or chooses to not support the software (at all or on a specific platform.) Take the coming y2038. For many things, the changes aren't immense, but the original developer could die in 2027 and never make them. Access to the source is crucial, even if the user doesn't think they'll need it or be able to use it themselves.
rbanffy 10y ago
> the user is not someone versed enough to modify the code. A good book can solve that.

dTal 10y ago

I would say rather that the GPL treats "the user" and "the developer" as one and the same, and while this is often not true in practice it is an important principle; without it, the user can never become the developer. And only a tiny fraction of users need to become developers for every user to benefit. (A distinction not unique to software, and under threat in other places as well: "no user servicable parts inside". Many might be helpless, but who could argue that enforced helplessness is a good thing?)

dsr_ 10y ago
The essence of the UNIX philosophy is not "make small utilities that can be fitted together with pipes" but to assume that at any moment, a user might decide to be a developer or a sysadmin and should have the tools to do that. The problems of UNIX generally come from assuming either that users are never devs and sysadmins, or that all users are devs and sysadmins.