15 ms·

The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. That it simultaneously destroys any hope

The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich themselves by selling the software is supremely ironic, as it forces them to live as wage slaves under the whims of their corporate overlords. Thus they gain one sort of liberty but at the expense of giving up other economic freedoms. Frankly if someone came up to me and said that in their ideal world I wouldn't be able to sell software or build my own software company, I'd want to burn them at the stake for heresy. Fortunately the world is big enough for everyone. :D

rbanffy 16y ago
> The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. Care to explain your reasoning? > The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. That's why it explicitly prohibits you from using GPL'ed code under proprietary licenses. No. If you intend to engage in an intelligent debate, you should, at least, educate yourself to a point you actually can. > That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich themselves by selling the software You can always double-license it, MySQL-style. Again, GPL is not for the developers, but for the users. In your case, it's likely you use more software than you create, so, in the end, the GPL actually benefits you despite your own misgivings and misconceptions. > I wouldn't be able to sell software Why? What I can't have is a monopoly on the GPL'ed software I sell. OTOH, nobody can have a monopoly on GPL'ed software. And that's a very good thing for the users, who are sure they will have both the software and the technical means to maintain it on the unlikely event I am hit by a bus.
- Stormbringer 16y ago
  >> The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. >Care to explain your reasoning? >> The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. My reasoning is that the GPL is about what you can do with the code the program is based on. USERS don't do stuff with code. Programmers do stuff with code. A user is not going to take an annoying bug in your app and fix it, but (given guaranteed access to the source) a developer might. > You can always double-license it, MySQL-style. cough Indeed. uncough
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > USERS don't do stuff with code. They use it, they trust it works and they hire programmers to do stuff on their behalf. > but (given guaranteed access to the source) a developer might. Do you know of any other license that guarantees access to source from every downstream fork?
prodigal_erik 16y ago
The GPL proclaims its user-centric purpose right up front, and everything in it is about what developers must provide to users and permit them to do. Stallman is on record about freedom being much more important to him than making us or himself rich. I don't know why you'd bother to accuse them of ironically failing to achieve a goal they're clearly indifferent about. Every time society attaches a price tag to an unlimited resource like copies of software, we make ourselves poorer overall by minimizing our benefit from wealth that can't be used up or worn out. In my ideal world, software is developed as work for hire, because it's actually skilled labor that's scarce and needs to be rationed out by the economy. Doctors don't sell medicine, plumbers don't sell pipe, why should developers sell copies of binaries rather than hours of work?
- quadhome 16y ago
  > Doctors don't sell medicine, plumbers don't sell pipe, why should developers sell copies of binaries rather than hours of work? Because selling copies is far more scalable and profitable?
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    I think the question is why users put up with having software that doesn't suit their needs and that they can't fix themselves of hire someone to fix it (like they would do with a bad plumber). It's simply because they don't know they have an option. The GPL proposes to give users that right. Since I am in that uncomfortable user position a lot, I am all for it.
    - Stormbringer 16y ago
      Users don't fix software, developers do.
      - prodigal_erik 16y ago
        The question then becomes, can a user hire any developer for a fix, rather than being at the mercy of the original vendor? This right not only keeps hourly rates more reasonable, but also takes away the vendor's incentive to use bad designs that lead to customer lock-in. For a perhaps overused metaphor, I wouldn't buy a car with the hood welded shut.

rbanffy 16y ago

> The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. Care to explain your reasoning? > The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. That's why it explicitly prohibits you from using GPL'ed code under proprietary licenses. No. If you intend to engage in an intelligent debate, you should, at least, educate yourself to a point you actually can. > That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich themselves by selling the software You can always double-license it, MySQL-style. Again, GPL is not for the developers, but for the users. In your case, it's likely you use more software than you create, so, in the end, the GPL actually benefits you despite your own misgivings and misconceptions. > I wouldn't be able to sell software Why? What I can't have is a monopoly on the GPL'ed software I sell. OTOH, nobody can have a monopoly on GPL'ed software. And that's a very good thing for the users, who are sure they will have both the software and the technical means to maintain it on the unlikely event I am hit by a bus.

Stormbringer 16y ago
>> The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. >Care to explain your reasoning? >> The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. My reasoning is that the GPL is about what you can do with the code the program is based on. USERS don't do stuff with code. Programmers do stuff with code. A user is not going to take an annoying bug in your app and fix it, but (given guaranteed access to the source) a developer might. > You can always double-license it, MySQL-style. cough Indeed. uncough
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > USERS don't do stuff with code. They use it, they trust it works and they hire programmers to do stuff on their behalf. > but (given guaranteed access to the source) a developer might. Do you know of any other license that guarantees access to source from every downstream fork?

prodigal_erik 16y ago

The GPL proclaims its user-centric purpose right up front, and everything in it is about what developers must provide to users and permit them to do. Stallman is on record about freedom being much more important to him than making us or himself rich. I don't know why you'd bother to accuse them of ironically failing to achieve a goal they're clearly indifferent about. Every time society attaches a price tag to an unlimited resource like copies of software, we make ourselves poorer overall by minimizing our benefit from wealth that can't be used up or worn out. In my ideal world, software is developed as work for hire, because it's actually skilled labor that's scarce and needs to be rationed out by the economy. Doctors don't sell medicine, plumbers don't sell pipe, why should developers sell copies of binaries rather than hours of work?

quadhome 16y ago
> Doctors don't sell medicine, plumbers don't sell pipe, why should developers sell copies of binaries rather than hours of work? Because selling copies is far more scalable and profitable?
- rbanffy 16y ago
  I think the question is why users put up with having software that doesn't suit their needs and that they can't fix themselves of hire someone to fix it (like they would do with a bad plumber). It's simply because they don't know they have an option. The GPL proposes to give users that right. Since I am in that uncomfortable user position a lot, I am all for it.
  - Stormbringer 16y ago
    Users don't fix software, developers do.
    - prodigal_erik 16y ago
      The question then becomes, can a user hire any developer for a fix, rather than being at the mercy of the original vendor? This right not only keeps hourly rates more reasonable, but also takes away the vendor's incentive to use bad designs that lead to customer lock-in. For a perhaps overused metaphor, I wouldn't buy a car with the hood welded shut.