4 ms·

I'll offer a little counterpoint to that. I had known 'free software' as shareware until ~2001 when I had my first introduction to Linux. I was very curious, an

by err4nt 9y ago

I'll offer a little counterpoint to that. I had known 'free software' as shareware until ~2001 when I had my first introduction to Linux. I was very curious, and took to open source software AND the ideals very easily. Because of my experience as a teenager poking around operating systems, fixing xorg.conf files after compiling nVidia drivers, and running and using thousands of different software applications - tools for many many different jobs I had never been exposed to before. I consider open-source being an education I received that has helped me to use computers and software today. Because I have benefitted so much from open-source, now that I'm in a position where I can write and release software I am very motivated to give back to the same community that first gave to me. I hope that by producing work and releasing it to open-source I can help build up those who follow in my footsteps - and that's a richer treasure than dollars in my pocket. Having said all of this, I can't choose GPL for giving away my own software because the viral nature of it feels like a chain letter. It leaves a really bad taste in your mouth and I wouldn't want anybody to feel compelled to pick between using something I'm TRYING to give away for free and having to GPL their project, or not be able to use something I'm trying to give away for free just because of the license. So I keep choosing MIT, which basically says: 'you have to acknowledge that I wrote it, and you can't sue me because of damages you got from using it' but leaves pretty much any other use (even commercial reselling) open. I can't imagine anybody looking at a piece of code under MIT and having objections, or a reason why the license prevents them from using it - and THAT is the point of free software to me. GPL software is arguably LESS free than the more liberal licenses :D

cr0sh 9y ago
You had me up to the end of your third paragraph, then you dropped off a cliff. You're free to believe and think what you want, of course, but the whole point of the GPL is make sure that the code is "paid forward", and not locked up somewhere along the chain. The GPL is there so that future up-and-coming curious kids can see the code, and learn from it - much like you did. I grew up in a slightly different world. The GPL first came about in 1989; I was a sophomore in high school, and had no idea about it. The "free software" code I learned from was printed in magazines, that you typed in. As time wore on, though, something along the line changed - code to type in was getting less, and proprietary was growing. I held some of that at bay with my Amiga (which still carried some of the spirit in the magazines of the time), but still change kept coming. Several years went by, until in about 1995 I was introduced to Linux by a friend of mine (who, interestingly, I met via a 2600 meetup) - and also to the GPL by extension. Here was an entire operating system I could see the code of! Amazing! It was all there - out in the open - for me to play with, learn from, and modify as needed or desired! Freedom! All I had to do was agree to pay it forward... ...and I'm ok with that. I don't want a younger person like me to be stuck in the dim place again, without access to the code to learn from. I also want them to experience the thrill of having the code available to work with. I don't want anyone - myself or others - to take that away. And believe me, if a corporation really wanted to, they could work to lock up non-GPL'd works. All they need to do is become much more popular, and let the original work wither on the vine. It may take decades for that to happen (BSD vs OS-X?) - but it can happen. They can wait. But that kid 50 or 100 years from now? What about him or her?
- err4nt 9y ago
  Well I would consider licenses like MIT, LGPL, and some of the CC licenses to be _more_ free than the GPL, so I expect more MIT and public domain code will survive and continue to be used and available for those people in 50 or 100 years :)

by err4nt 9y ago

cr0sh 9y ago

You had me up to the end of your third paragraph, then you dropped off a cliff. You're free to believe and think what you want, of course, but the whole point of the GPL is make sure that the code is "paid forward", and not locked up somewhere along the chain. The GPL is there so that future up-and-coming curious kids can see the code, and learn from it - much like you did. I grew up in a slightly different world. The GPL first came about in 1989; I was a sophomore in high school, and had no idea about it. The "free software" code I learned from was printed in magazines, that you typed in. As time wore on, though, something along the line changed - code to type in was getting less, and proprietary was growing. I held some of that at bay with my Amiga (which still carried some of the spirit in the magazines of the time), but still change kept coming. Several years went by, until in about 1995 I was introduced to Linux by a friend of mine (who, interestingly, I met via a 2600 meetup) - and also to the GPL by extension. Here was an entire operating system I could see the code of! Amazing! It was all there - out in the open - for me to play with, learn from, and modify as needed or desired! Freedom! All I had to do was agree to pay it forward... ...and I'm ok with that. I don't want a younger person like me to be stuck in the dim place again, without access to the code to learn from. I also want them to experience the thrill of having the code available to work with. I don't want anyone - myself or others - to take that away. And believe me, if a corporation really wanted to, they could work to lock up non-GPL'd works. All they need to do is become much more popular, and let the original work wither on the vine. It may take decades for that to happen (BSD vs OS-X?) - but it can happen. They can wait. But that kid 50 or 100 years from now? What about him or her?

err4nt 9y ago
Well I would consider licenses like MIT, LGPL, and some of the CC licenses to be _more_ free than the GPL, so I expect more MIT and public domain code will survive and continue to be used and available for those people in 50 or 100 years :)