3 ms·
>> It's perfectly possible to publish code for all the world to see, but license under terms that don't permit all uses. GPL does that. No, it doesn't. GPL do
by thesuperbigfrog 7y ago
>> It's perfectly possible to publish code for all the world to see, but license under terms that don't permit all uses. GPL does that.
No, it doesn't. GPL does allow all uses. From the GPL FAQ:
"I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this?
No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user.
More generally, a license that limits who can use a program, or for what, is not a free software license."
Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary
As the FAQ states the GPL does add additional conditions regarding adding restrictions that would restrict usage rights for the original or derivative works. That is not the same as prohibiting use.
You are welcome to use GPL-licensed code in your commercial product, provided that you follow the terms of the license.
>> The politics of free and open source are hackable. We're engaging in that process. We expect others who disagree to, as well. But the hood is not welded shut. The phrase "open source" isn’t proprietary to anyone.
You are free to debate all you want, but attempting to redefine the commonly accepted meanings of what constitutes "open source" and "free software" amounts to the corruption of the principles that those movements were founded on, more especially for "free software".
If eroding freedom for profit is your goal, fork off your own license and give it a distinguishing name. For example, it could be called the "Ethical Software License" (EthSL) with one or more acronyms that represent what non-ethical uses are restricted.
For example: EthSL-NoMIL (Non-Military), EthSL-NoICE (Non-Immigration / Customs Enforcement), EthSL-Animal (No use in endeavors which harm or exploit animals), EthSL-Eco (No use in endeavors which harm the environment), etc.
- kemitchell 7y ago> GPL does allow all uses. GPL does not allow use of GPL-licensed libraries and frameworks to build nonfree applications. If you do that, you violate the GPL. The "use" versus "build" distinction is pure semantics. And those semantics are pure post-hoc politics. For a sense of their weakness, ask: Which of the four freedoms covers building software with unmodified GPL libraries? The four freedoms say "run", not "use". It's only specific verbs, which don't clearly covering everything people do with software. > You are free to debate all you want, but attempting to redefine the commonly accepted meanings of what constitutes "open source" and "free software" amounts to the corruption of the principles that those movements were founded on, more especially for "free software". Commonly accepted is a big reach. We may both be familiar with deep cuts from the FSF.org philosophy section, but the vast majority of programmers aren't. I don't know why you mention profit. Selling exceptions to ethical licenses is legally possible, but I haven't heard anyone asking for an ethical license term bring it up yet. If you have links to folks exploring that, do share! I'm genuinely interested, and would be genuinely surprised to see that become a common model.