4 ms·

I don't get why people pretend not to understand Stallman's view point. If you buy a physical device which isn't controlled by some software black box, you can

I don't get why people pretend not to understand Stallman's view point. If you buy a physical device which isn't controlled by some software black box, you can fix or improve it so long as you have the materials, skills and tools to do so, or you can afford for others to do that for you. Libre software operates on the same principle. If you have the skills to understand the code, you can extend it or fix it. What is so difficult to comprehend about this? Libre software is not about money, but the ability to learn, fix and improve the software. You can sell a 100 line free software package for a $1bn if you want to, so long as you provide the code. Why so much propaganda has developed around this principle only shows how the free software discussions are overrun with shills. The fact that tons of free software can be downloaded for the cost of a monthy internet subscription doesn't change financial principle.

AceJohnny2 9y ago
Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy _and redistribute_ the work or any derivative version That redistribute there is what undermines any business model that depends on selling licenses for GPL software. If you sell your 100-line code for $1bn, there is huge incentive for the customer to sell it themselves at a lower cost, undercutting you.
- vfclists 9y ago
  The purpose of the license is to enable the end user to fix the software if it is broken and extend it if they want to. It is to remove restrictions on the use of the software, not the sale of the software. If avoids the current situation in which equipment manufacturers deliberately insert software into equipment roles which have historically worked fine without software to prevent the users and third-party repairers from repairing them, and criminalizing attempts to fix problems via DRM regulations. Making software fixable by end users doesn't involve any major losses as most people, even advanced computer programmers don't have the knowledge or domain expertise to fix or extend software themselves. It only means they have the option of locating and hiring other experts to fix themselves if they need to, as goes for a lot of the sophisticated hardware and software devices out there.
  - AceJohnny2 9y ago
    I think we're talking past each other. My point is that the GPL undermines software-based business models. This is the foundation upon which GPL fear is built upon. Your point, if I understood correctly, is that the GPL gives the users freedoms to modify the software. That's all well and good (and that's why I love it), but that's unrelated to the business model. Further, you dismiss the business impact of the GPL redistribution "loophole". I recommend looking at the history of all open-source based companies to understand the real impact of that loophole. For example, VA Linux Systems or any commercial Linux distribution other than RedHat (and there, the impact of CentOS), and there's a reason Ubuntu has struggled with controversial money-making strategies like including ads in desktop searches. Undermining a business model undermines the livelihood of companies, and thus the salary and livelihood of people working in that company. That is where the fear of the GPL stems from. Understanding that fear is necessary if you hope to address it successfully.

AceJohnny2 9y ago

Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy _and redistribute_ the work or any derivative version That redistribute there is what undermines any business model that depends on selling licenses for GPL software. If you sell your 100-line code for $1bn, there is huge incentive for the customer to sell it themselves at a lower cost, undercutting you.

vfclists 9y ago
The purpose of the license is to enable the end user to fix the software if it is broken and extend it if they want to. It is to remove restrictions on the use of the software, not the sale of the software. If avoids the current situation in which equipment manufacturers deliberately insert software into equipment roles which have historically worked fine without software to prevent the users and third-party repairers from repairing them, and criminalizing attempts to fix problems via DRM regulations. Making software fixable by end users doesn't involve any major losses as most people, even advanced computer programmers don't have the knowledge or domain expertise to fix or extend software themselves. It only means they have the option of locating and hiring other experts to fix themselves if they need to, as goes for a lot of the sophisticated hardware and software devices out there.
- AceJohnny2 9y ago
  I think we're talking past each other. My point is that the GPL undermines software-based business models. This is the foundation upon which GPL fear is built upon. Your point, if I understood correctly, is that the GPL gives the users freedoms to modify the software. That's all well and good (and that's why I love it), but that's unrelated to the business model. Further, you dismiss the business impact of the GPL redistribution "loophole". I recommend looking at the history of all open-source based companies to understand the real impact of that loophole. For example, VA Linux Systems or any commercial Linux distribution other than RedHat (and there, the impact of CentOS), and there's a reason Ubuntu has struggled with controversial money-making strategies like including ads in desktop searches. Undermining a business model undermines the livelihood of companies, and thus the salary and livelihood of people working in that company. That is where the fear of the GPL stems from. Understanding that fear is necessary if you hope to address it successfully.