5 ms·

I've always likened GPL promoters and promoters of the more permissive licenses to conservatives vs liberals. GPL users are more worried about someone taking a

I've always likened GPL promoters and promoters of the more permissive licenses to conservatives vs liberals. GPL users are more worried about someone taking and not giving back. Other license users are more worried about lost opportunity to proliferate. In the same way, conservatives are more worried about bad behavior among their fellow citizens, whereas liberals are more worried about lost opportunities for their fellow citizens to grow and flourish. In every endeavor, there is risk and opportunity, and they must be balanced somehow. Conservatives err on the side of reducing risk of bad actors, who can spoil it for everyone. Liberals err on the side of reducing lost opportunities, which prevent us from going forward as a whole. It's also why I won't argue in favor of one over the other. You'd have about as much success arguing in in favor of liberal ideals to a conservative, or conservative ideals to a liberal. Their reasoning is emotional, which is why it gets uncomfortable real fast, and they dig their heels in, pulling all sorts of "facts" to prove their side.

wiz21c 10y ago
To put it in a more positive way : GPL users think about others first and themselves second. Anti-GPL people think the other way around. I wouldn't say either is good or bad, but I'd say they sure don't mix well together.
- kstenerud 10y ago
  Wow, that was fast. You're pro-GPL, and it shows in how you colored your words to favor your side and denigrate the other.
  - wiz21c 10y ago
    well, just like the OP I guess :-) But frankly I didn't mean to make it sound better. I truly think that some people think for themselves first and for the others second. It's not a matter of selfishness, it's a matter of direction. I can think about many people who were positive for the society in both categories. And I'd even say that we tend to change our "colour" every now and then. For example, many private companies are greedy, but it doesn't stop them to provide good things to me (it'd be better if they gave them away for free, but well, they have to make a living too). I'd say GPL is the other direction but as many mentioned, although we may like the idea, we have to recognize that the success (and therefore the value for society) is not exactly massive. But you're right I'm rather "pro GPL, anti capital and maybe a bit of an anarchist too" :-) But well, it doesn't prevent me to work on commercial things and GPL things :-) The fact is that it's very tough to discuss political ideas without getting too involved.
  - dleslie 10y ago
    Thinking of yourself first and before others isn't necessarily unethical. You're seeing denigration where it doesn't exist.
  - smichel17 10y ago
    To put it a more neutral way, pro-GPL people put user freedom first; anti-GPL people put developer freedom first. There's nothing inherently wrong with either view; I personally stand with users.
- watwut 10y ago
  Yeah, all those people releasing software under Apache or MIT or Eclipse or ... license are so selfish.
lorenzhs 10y ago
Your observations don't correlate with the actual political opinions of prominent advocates of what boils down to the ages-old free software vs open source split. You don't need to look further than ESR for a striking counterexample.
- kstenerud 10y ago
  Actually, no. I'm not talking about open vs closed source. I'm talking about HOW the source is open (GPL vs BSD et al). ESR is mostly a centerist when it comes to that.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    Neither was I? "Open Source vs Free Software" is exactly about BSD/MIT/... vs GPL. As a cofounder of the OSI, ESR is most certainly not a centrist on that. To quote Wikipedia on the OSI: "The Open Source Initiative chose the term "open source," in founding member Michael Tiemann's words, to "dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with 'free software'" and instead promote open source ideas on "pragmatic, business-case grounds.""
- erikbye 10y ago
  Noone takes ESR seriously. At least shouldn't. And he has no influence on people working on real and useful open source projects.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    Well I certainly agree that nobody should take him seriously but I'm unconvinced that that matches up with reality. His blog does get a lot of comments.
    - erikbye 10y ago
      You are right. That was naive and wishful thinking on my part.

wiz21c 10y ago

To put it in a more positive way : GPL users think about others first and themselves second. Anti-GPL people think the other way around. I wouldn't say either is good or bad, but I'd say they sure don't mix well together.

kstenerud 10y ago
Wow, that was fast. You're pro-GPL, and it shows in how you colored your words to favor your side and denigrate the other.
- wiz21c 10y ago
  well, just like the OP I guess :-) But frankly I didn't mean to make it sound better. I truly think that some people think for themselves first and for the others second. It's not a matter of selfishness, it's a matter of direction. I can think about many people who were positive for the society in both categories. And I'd even say that we tend to change our "colour" every now and then. For example, many private companies are greedy, but it doesn't stop them to provide good things to me (it'd be better if they gave them away for free, but well, they have to make a living too). I'd say GPL is the other direction but as many mentioned, although we may like the idea, we have to recognize that the success (and therefore the value for society) is not exactly massive. But you're right I'm rather "pro GPL, anti capital and maybe a bit of an anarchist too" :-) But well, it doesn't prevent me to work on commercial things and GPL things :-) The fact is that it's very tough to discuss political ideas without getting too involved.
- dleslie 10y ago
  Thinking of yourself first and before others isn't necessarily unethical. You're seeing denigration where it doesn't exist.
- smichel17 10y ago
  To put it a more neutral way, pro-GPL people put user freedom first; anti-GPL people put developer freedom first. There's nothing inherently wrong with either view; I personally stand with users.
watwut 10y ago
Yeah, all those people releasing software under Apache or MIT or Eclipse or ... license are so selfish.

lorenzhs 10y ago

Your observations don't correlate with the actual political opinions of prominent advocates of what boils down to the ages-old free software vs open source split. You don't need to look further than ESR for a striking counterexample.

kstenerud 10y ago
Actually, no. I'm not talking about open vs closed source. I'm talking about HOW the source is open (GPL vs BSD et al). ESR is mostly a centerist when it comes to that.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  Neither was I? "Open Source vs Free Software" is exactly about BSD/MIT/... vs GPL. As a cofounder of the OSI, ESR is most certainly not a centrist on that. To quote Wikipedia on the OSI: "The Open Source Initiative chose the term "open source," in founding member Michael Tiemann's words, to "dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with 'free software'" and instead promote open source ideas on "pragmatic, business-case grounds.""
erikbye 10y ago
Noone takes ESR seriously. At least shouldn't. And he has no influence on people working on real and useful open source projects.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  Well I certainly agree that nobody should take him seriously but I'm unconvinced that that matches up with reality. His blog does get a lot of comments.
  - erikbye 10y ago
    You are right. That was naive and wishful thinking on my part.