3 ms·

Perhaps. Yet, I see nothing wrong with remaining in control of my software's future (at least in some way: I can make sure it remains free). And I see nothing w

Perhaps. Yet, I see nothing wrong with remaining in control of my software's future (at least in some way: I can make sure it remains free). And I see nothing wrong with having a smile over my face when I see people realize they can't take that freedom away from others. My priority is that what I've created to remain free, available to others, just like the huge amount of software I learned from. If someone wants to take that freedom away, and can't, I can't help but feel glad that freedom has been preserved.

billswift 16y ago
The problem with your claim is that the software you created is still just as available to others even if third parties use it in proprietary software. All you are doing is making it unavailable to those who would otherwise be using it third-hand in such proprietary packages that can't be made because of licensing issues. You are not maximizing others' freedom, you are restricting it.
- _delirium 16y ago
  I don't see this as a decrease in freedom over the default situation, though. If code is copyrighted, third parties can't use your code in their software, unless they reach a licensing agreement with you. I see GPLing my software as making a limited quid-pro-quo exception: you can use my code for free, without individually negotiating a license, but only if you do the same with your software. If that situation doesn't apply, then I'm happy to license the software in the normal manner, as one proprietary software vendor doing business with another one. My view is something like: If someone is writing a piece of proprietary software, they should understand what proprietary software licensing means, and be prepared to pay for a commercial license if they want to use someone else's code, just as they'd expect anyone else to pay to use their code.
  - madhouse 16y ago
    Well put, thanks for expressing the other half of my thoughts :)
- madhouse 16y ago
  That is precisely what I want: if I released something as open source, I want it to stay that way. I do not want it to be used in proprietary software. Yes, I am restricting freedom in a way, but only in cases when someone wants to take those freedoms away. In the long run, I ensure that my software remains available to everyone who doesn't want to take that freedom away. I am happy to exclude those, who would take my work and build it into proprietary stuff.

billswift 16y ago

The problem with your claim is that the software you created is still just as available to others even if third parties use it in proprietary software. All you are doing is making it unavailable to those who would otherwise be using it third-hand in such proprietary packages that can't be made because of licensing issues. You are not maximizing others' freedom, you are restricting it.

_delirium 16y ago
I don't see this as a decrease in freedom over the default situation, though. If code is copyrighted, third parties can't use your code in their software, unless they reach a licensing agreement with you. I see GPLing my software as making a limited quid-pro-quo exception: you can use my code for free, without individually negotiating a license, but only if you do the same with your software. If that situation doesn't apply, then I'm happy to license the software in the normal manner, as one proprietary software vendor doing business with another one. My view is something like: If someone is writing a piece of proprietary software, they should understand what proprietary software licensing means, and be prepared to pay for a commercial license if they want to use someone else's code, just as they'd expect anyone else to pay to use their code.
- madhouse 16y ago
  Well put, thanks for expressing the other half of my thoughts :)
madhouse 16y ago
That is precisely what I want: if I released something as open source, I want it to stay that way. I do not want it to be used in proprietary software. Yes, I am restricting freedom in a way, but only in cases when someone wants to take those freedoms away. In the long run, I ensure that my software remains available to everyone who doesn't want to take that freedom away. I am happy to exclude those, who would take my work and build it into proprietary stuff.