4 ms·

The GPL is not about freedom for users, it's about freedom for source code.

by vilya 16y ago

rlpb 16y ago
According to the FSF, it is about freedom for users. "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
- tiles 16y ago
  Freedoms which releasing any GPL'd code under the old App stores terms would have been negated.
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  Freedom 2 is not absolute, since I can't help my neighbor by making an improved version of the software that compiles against closed source libraries and distributing it to them. Same with freedom 3 - if I make changes in that manner, I may not distribute them. As a user, I am less free with the GPL than other licenses. Not that this is a bad thing, but if the goal of the FSF is freedom of the user, they've got a ways to go.
  - blasdel 16y ago
    Freedom 0 is stripped way by the AGPL, since you're not allowed to run the program in public without distributing source to your audience.
    - quadhome 16y ago
      What do you mean "run the program in public?" I don't think you mean putting a projector up and showing it off to an audience. (Which would be OK.) I'm guessing you mean a web-app where your "audience" is running the software provided as a service. In that situation, the AGPL requires that you provide them the source code so they aren't beholden to you. Otherwise, a web service is even more closed source than a binary executable.
      - blasdel 16y ago
        You can't run the program on your own computer if other people can connect to it over the network without assenting to the license. It's a goddamn clickwrap EULA, something Stallman used to stand strongly against until he felt the need to rail against "the cloud" as that came into fashion. The "audience" absolutely does not run the software, you do, on your computer — you just allow them to interact with it. Also you're absolutely mistaken in thinking that the AGPL makes your users any less beholden to you when you still control their data — the program by itself is absolutely worthless, even with the means to develop and deploy it.
        quadhome 16y ago
        I think I see where we're misunderstanding each other. The freedoms the GPL ensures aren't for the developer of the software; but, for the users of that software. The point is that, from the perspective of your users-- your "audience"-- they're running software somewhere out in the Internet. Where the GPL ensured (amongst other things) that they'd have access to the source of their local programs, the AGPL ensures they have access to the source of their remote programs. From your perspective, this decreases your freedom as a developer because you're required to distribute your source code to your "audience." But, you have a simple recourse: don't use the AGPL! wrt. the clickwrap EULA, I think the GPL and its variants have always been a set of terms and conditions. I don't know Stallman's arguments or what you're railing against; but, I will guess that his problem with clickwrap EULAs were that they limited how a user could personally use the software... or, worse, made other at-best tangentially related demands of them. The GPL and its variants do not limit your personal use, but rather constrain your ability to re-distribute the software. wrt. the AGPL making users any less beholden due to the data silo effect, my position is that a program isn't intrinsically useless without a user's data... or even the developer's own custom data. Consider a site like Facebook, where the primary value is in its network effects: anyone could open a competitor site that had feature parity. If the original site (Facebook) changed its policies in a way the userbase disliked, they could move to a competitor knowing the functionality would be the same. Or, consider the GPL release of id software's old games. None of the assets are free. However, that didn't stop a huge ecosystem from springing up. Derivatives, alternate games, and the many thousands of people gaining an understanding of how to make a Real Game.
  - quadhome 16y ago
    wrt. freedoms 2 and 3, yes, you can. See: any GPL software on Windows. Maybe you meant you can't distribute a closed source program that depends on a GPL library?
    - halostatue 16y ago
      Windows has the OS exception in place, as would iOS. RMS has expressed the opinion that GPLed PhotoShop plug-ins aren't legal, nor is it legal to use a closed-source plug-in in the Gimp. The whole question of GPLed code in a non-free JVM has never been answered, as the JVM isn't quite an OS to qualify for the OS exception. Thus, freedoms 2 & 3 are somewhat…flexible in practice.
      - quadhome 16y ago
        There is no official "OS exception." But, the GPL does discriminate against "System Libraries" Can you link to where RMS expressed that opinion? It goes directly against GNU's FAQ on the GPL[1]. It is a copyright violation to distribute closed source plugins for the GIMP. But, that is the reverse of the photoshop situation. The GIMP is GPL and so anything linking with it must also guarantee the same redistribution rights. But, neither of these examples conflicts against your earlier examples. The GPL places no restrictions on your-- or your neighbor's-- personal use. And, you may distribute a GPL extension to a closed source product. Of course, GNU would rather you'd implement a free software equivalent. :rolls eyes: [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

The GPL is not about freedom for users, it's about freedom for source code.

by vilya 16y ago

The GPL is not about freedom for users, it's about freedom for source code.

rlpb 16y ago

According to the FSF, it is about freedom for users. "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

tiles 16y ago
Freedoms which releasing any GPL'd code under the old App stores terms would have been negated.
moxiemk1 16y ago
Freedom 2 is not absolute, since I can't help my neighbor by making an improved version of the software that compiles against closed source libraries and distributing it to them. Same with freedom 3 - if I make changes in that manner, I may not distribute them. As a user, I am less free with the GPL than other licenses. Not that this is a bad thing, but if the goal of the FSF is freedom of the user, they've got a ways to go.
- blasdel 16y ago
  Freedom 0 is stripped way by the AGPL, since you're not allowed to run the program in public without distributing source to your audience.
  - quadhome 16y ago
    What do you mean "run the program in public?" I don't think you mean putting a projector up and showing it off to an audience. (Which would be OK.) I'm guessing you mean a web-app where your "audience" is running the software provided as a service. In that situation, the AGPL requires that you provide them the source code so they aren't beholden to you. Otherwise, a web service is even more closed source than a binary executable.
    - blasdel 16y ago
      You can't run the program on your own computer if other people can connect to it over the network without assenting to the license. It's a goddamn clickwrap EULA, something Stallman used to stand strongly against until he felt the need to rail against "the cloud" as that came into fashion. The "audience" absolutely does not run the software, you do, on your computer — you just allow them to interact with it. Also you're absolutely mistaken in thinking that the AGPL makes your users any less beholden to you when you still control their data — the program by itself is absolutely worthless, even with the means to develop and deploy it.
      - quadhome 16y ago
        I think I see where we're misunderstanding each other. The freedoms the GPL ensures aren't for the developer of the software; but, for the users of that software. The point is that, from the perspective of your users-- your "audience"-- they're running software somewhere out in the Internet. Where the GPL ensured (amongst other things) that they'd have access to the source of their local programs, the AGPL ensures they have access to the source of their remote programs. From your perspective, this decreases your freedom as a developer because you're required to distribute your source code to your "audience." But, you have a simple recourse: don't use the AGPL! wrt. the clickwrap EULA, I think the GPL and its variants have always been a set of terms and conditions. I don't know Stallman's arguments or what you're railing against; but, I will guess that his problem with clickwrap EULAs were that they limited how a user could personally use the software... or, worse, made other at-best tangentially related demands of them. The GPL and its variants do not limit your personal use, but rather constrain your ability to re-distribute the software. wrt. the AGPL making users any less beholden due to the data silo effect, my position is that a program isn't intrinsically useless without a user's data... or even the developer's own custom data. Consider a site like Facebook, where the primary value is in its network effects: anyone could open a competitor site that had feature parity. If the original site (Facebook) changed its policies in a way the userbase disliked, they could move to a competitor knowing the functionality would be the same. Or, consider the GPL release of id software's old games. None of the assets are free. However, that didn't stop a huge ecosystem from springing up. Derivatives, alternate games, and the many thousands of people gaining an understanding of how to make a Real Game.
- quadhome 16y ago
  wrt. freedoms 2 and 3, yes, you can. See: any GPL software on Windows. Maybe you meant you can't distribute a closed source program that depends on a GPL library?
  - halostatue 16y ago
    Windows has the OS exception in place, as would iOS. RMS has expressed the opinion that GPLed PhotoShop plug-ins aren't legal, nor is it legal to use a closed-source plug-in in the Gimp. The whole question of GPLed code in a non-free JVM has never been answered, as the JVM isn't quite an OS to qualify for the OS exception. Thus, freedoms 2 & 3 are somewhat…flexible in practice.
    - quadhome 16y ago
      There is no official "OS exception." But, the GPL does discriminate against "System Libraries" Can you link to where RMS expressed that opinion? It goes directly against GNU's FAQ on the GPL[1]. It is a copyright violation to distribute closed source plugins for the GIMP. But, that is the reverse of the photoshop situation. The GIMP is GPL and so anything linking with it must also guarantee the same redistribution rights. But, neither of these examples conflicts against your earlier examples. The GPL places no restrictions on your-- or your neighbor's-- personal use. And, you may distribute a GPL extension to a closed source product. Of course, GNU would rather you'd implement a free software equivalent. :rolls eyes: [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF