6 ms·

I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away

I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license. How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then.

jedsmith 16y ago
> Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I really hate this attitude. Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. Edit: Wow, three downvotes within 30 seconds for appealing to working together instead of segregating computing into those who agree with your license and those who do not. This comment wasn't even about the GPL, it was about the OP's demonstrated attitude (and, importantly, not about the OP himself). If you're voting me down, at least man up and disagree with me with prose. It's things like this that make me wonder why I spend so much time contributing to HN.
- fossuser 16y ago
  The point of the GPL is to ensure future collaborative development is possible with anyone who has the software. It exists because of people taking software and incorporating it into proprietary programs that force others to reinvent the wheel when unnecessary. Essentially I agree with you that we are best served by putting our capabilities towards improvment and the goals of the GPL align directly with protecting that idea.
- tspiteri 16y ago
  cosgroveb: Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. jedsmith: I really hate this attitude. Isn't the point of the Internet to bring developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. I really can't see what this has to do with cosgroveb's comment, which is saying that a GPL program is not taking anything at all away. When you quote "Don't like .. your own then.", I think you are taking it out of context. The whole paragraph reads: cosgroveb: How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I take this to mean that if you can't use code under the GPL license, you are exactly in the same situation as if the code is unavailable, and you are not worse off. So the GPL code has taken nothing away.
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    Firstly, thank you for taking the time to disagree with something in a manner that I can read. I voted you up just for that. > I think you are taking it out of context. Edit: Oh, okay, on third read I see what you mean. I stand by my comment, though: sure, he says that the license doesn't take away your freedom, and implies that since you're free to rewrite your own, you are still free. How is that freedom to do what you will with the software? That's the rub. I'm free to change careers to taxidermist, too, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
    - timtadh 16y ago
      The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to point out that this is the freedom GPL gives you. If you use GPL software you will never be in the position where you can't share it with you neighbor. If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. Thus, the GPL is consistent with RMSs ethical stance. However, as you have pointed out definitions of free and freedom vary. For you GPL does not free but rather chains you up; virally spreading to other work you would like to keep private. Thus, you are prevented from using GPL software and feel less free. Freedom is a tricky word.
      - jedsmith 16y ago
        > If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more correct). You can't have half freedom -- there is no ambiguity. Either you are free to do what you will with what is given to you, or you are not. There is no free with restrictions; that's called a catch. To be clear, too, what the FSF says and what those who subscribe to the belief say are often two different things, as evidenced in other places in this thread. What pains me the most is that any criticism of the GPL is automatically interpreted as trolling.
- unwind 16y ago
  That reads a bit like "isn't the point of newspapers to distribute solutions to crossword puzzles easily?", to me. Not trying to say that I think "the point of the Internet" is news distribution; rather that claiming that there is a single "point" to something like the Internet is wholly non-sensical, to me. It just does not compute. And if I write and publish some code, it should be up to me what license I want to use. If other people are jealous or think it's wasteful that they can't do as they please with something I created, that really isn't my problem.
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    It was a poor choice of word. I agree, and have revised my remark.
- hxa7241 16y ago
  > Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Well, that is pretty much the purpose of GPL, isn't it. It sets up a co-operative rule: if you want to gain from GPL software, then you must give something back, and that is to let other people gain from your additions. It is better to co-operate, and GPL reifies that instinct into a legal form to give it a bit more strength.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Not exactly. He may gain from the use of the GPL and give nothing back if he doesn't pass along his software based on GPL software. In that sense, the focus of the GPL is not the upstream developer, but the downstream user. That's more or less what happened at the start of WebKit. Apple got KHTML, changed a lot of its inhards and published the whole thing back when Safari was launched. A lot of KHTML developers complained Apple's code was very Mac-specific and a pain to integrate back into KHTML.
- spicycat 16y ago
  Ok, let's contrast several options and see where the freedom lies: First, the GPL software. It's copyrighted, but you can use it in spite of that if you follow the rules of the GPL. If not, then you have to obey copyright law. Second, proprietary software. This is copyrighted, and when you use it you usually have to agree to a contract and pay money for it. If you don't follow the contract, then it's copyrighted and you can't use it. Third, you write the software yourself. Well, you wrote it. It's copyrighted, but since YOU own the copyright, you get to decide what you use it in! The best, most free deal of them all, right? Basically if you don't like dealing with other people owning the copyrights, the ONLY option is to make it yourself.
sjs 16y ago
The problem is that nobody actually knows what constitutes a derivative work. Hence you have the LGPL for libraries so that you don't have to worry about linking them. The result is that nobody wants to risk tainting their work with GPL code if they're trying to make money. If it's GPL many people won't even look at it because who knows if someone who contributed a 2 line patch 10 years ago is going to come banging down your door with lawyers crying about violations. That's not what freedom is about. If you want your code to have the widest use possible go for BSD/MIT licenses. If you want to promote RMS' agenda go for the GPL.
- cosgroveb 16y ago
  You're not responding to the substance of my post. I said I wasn't commenting on whether or not the GPL actually promotes freedom. It just doesn't take it away. You and I are in total agreement here. If you want your code to have the widest possible distribution, use BSD/MIT licenses (I have done this). You have the freedom to do this and the existence of the GPL does not take your freedom away from you. You also have the freedom to decide not to use GPLed code. People have a sense of entitlement WRT open source code, I think. As if it's "open source," it should be under whatever terms they want not those of the original author. I think that's why so many people bitch about copyleft licenses.
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    > People have a sense of entitlement WRT open source code, I think. As if it's "open source," it should be under whatever terms they want not those of the original author. I think that's why so many people bitch about copyleft licenses. That certainly isn't why I "bitch," as you say, as I realize that the author can do whatever he wishes. I do, however, make it a point to listen to my users; if my users have a philosophical disagreement over my choice of license, I take that into account in decisions on what to license in the future. That's the approach to software that I wish more developers would take: I have listened to your feedback, and I will take it into consideration. Your attitude, which is what I disagree so very strongly with, is that you didn't have to open-source the software at all, your users are lucky that you did, and you'll be damned if you'll consider feedback on your choice of licensing. It's "take it or leave it," which to the occasional user that wants to embed your code in something else, sucks a lot. There's been other comments in this thread to the effect of that "isn't [your] problem". If you're not interested in helping consumers of your software use it, why did you release it at all? I realize (believe me) that there is a line that must be drawn when it comes to listening to your users, but responding with "tough, rewrite it" is really a bummer to hear. Realistically, I think you're working against yourself with that take on your users.
chc 16y ago
How is that any more free than closed-source, proprietary software? You could just as easily say, "Don't like the terms of Photoshop's license? Go write your own then!" And unlike a GPL software vendor, Adobe couldn't turn around and sue you for creating a derivative work (because your brain hasn't been infected by any virally licensed source code). Anyway, the question of freedom between GPL and BSD is this: Does freedom include the ability to place restrictions on other people? The GPL tries to maximize freedom for everyone at the expense of freedom for each individual (the range of things you can do with GPL software is less than with BSD), while BSD allows the licensee almost total freedom to do what he wants, but doesn't guarantee that the freedom will be spread to others. It's kind of a quantity vs. quality thing.
- cosgroveb 16y ago
  I didn't say the GPL increased freedom. Only that it doesn't decrease it.
  - chc 16y ago
    "Increase" and "decrease" are only meaningful in relation to some baseline. The GPL doesn't decrease freedom relative to nothing at all, and only a little bit relative to proprietary software. But relative to the BSD license, you have less freedom with the GPL. I'm using it in the sense that the FSF says proprietary software decreases freedom: It gives the people who receive it less freedom than it otherwise could.
- sedachv 16y ago
  Arguing the GPL is restricting your freedom to steal other's work is exactly the same as arguing that the 13th Amendment is restricting your freedom to own slaves.
  - chc 16y ago
    The 13th amendment is restricting your freedom. It's called a tradeoff. That's my point.

jedsmith 16y ago

> Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I really hate this attitude. Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. Edit: Wow, three downvotes within 30 seconds for appealing to working together instead of segregating computing into those who agree with your license and those who do not. This comment wasn't even about the GPL, it was about the OP's demonstrated attitude (and, importantly, not about the OP himself). If you're voting me down, at least man up and disagree with me with prose. It's things like this that make me wonder why I spend so much time contributing to HN.

fossuser 16y ago
The point of the GPL is to ensure future collaborative development is possible with anyone who has the software. It exists because of people taking software and incorporating it into proprietary programs that force others to reinvent the wheel when unnecessary. Essentially I agree with you that we are best served by putting our capabilities towards improvment and the goals of the GPL align directly with protecting that idea.
tspiteri 16y ago
cosgroveb: Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. jedsmith: I really hate this attitude. Isn't the point of the Internet to bring developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. I really can't see what this has to do with cosgroveb's comment, which is saying that a GPL program is not taking anything at all away. When you quote "Don't like .. your own then.", I think you are taking it out of context. The whole paragraph reads: cosgroveb: How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I take this to mean that if you can't use code under the GPL license, you are exactly in the same situation as if the code is unavailable, and you are not worse off. So the GPL code has taken nothing away.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  Firstly, thank you for taking the time to disagree with something in a manner that I can read. I voted you up just for that. > I think you are taking it out of context. Edit: Oh, okay, on third read I see what you mean. I stand by my comment, though: sure, he says that the license doesn't take away your freedom, and implies that since you're free to rewrite your own, you are still free. How is that freedom to do what you will with the software? That's the rub. I'm free to change careers to taxidermist, too, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
  - timtadh 16y ago
    The issue here is you disagree with FSF over the meaning of the word free. Don't worry this is a common occurrence! To RMS free means freedom to use software without violating his "golden rule." RMS believes that if a neighbor wants to use software you are using you should be able to give it to him. Just as you would neighborly share flour or a rake. I am not going to debate RMSs ethical philosophy, I just want to point out that this is the freedom GPL gives you. If you use GPL software you will never be in the position where you can't share it with you neighbor. If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. Thus, the GPL is consistent with RMSs ethical stance. However, as you have pointed out definitions of free and freedom vary. For you GPL does not free but rather chains you up; virally spreading to other work you would like to keep private. Thus, you are prevented from using GPL software and feel less free. Freedom is a tricky word.
    - jedsmith 16y ago
      > If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor. So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software. Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more correct). You can't have half freedom -- there is no ambiguity. Either you are free to do what you will with what is given to you, or you are not. There is no free with restrictions; that's called a catch. To be clear, too, what the FSF says and what those who subscribe to the belief say are often two different things, as evidenced in other places in this thread. What pains me the most is that any criticism of the GPL is automatically interpreted as trolling.
unwind 16y ago
That reads a bit like "isn't the point of newspapers to distribute solutions to crossword puzzles easily?", to me. Not trying to say that I think "the point of the Internet" is news distribution; rather that claiming that there is a single "point" to something like the Internet is wholly non-sensical, to me. It just does not compute. And if I write and publish some code, it should be up to me what license I want to use. If other people are jealous or think it's wasteful that they can't do as they please with something I created, that really isn't my problem.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  It was a poor choice of word. I agree, and have revised my remark.
hxa7241 16y ago
> Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Well, that is pretty much the purpose of GPL, isn't it. It sets up a co-operative rule: if you want to gain from GPL software, then you must give something back, and that is to let other people gain from your additions. It is better to co-operate, and GPL reifies that instinct into a legal form to give it a bit more strength.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Not exactly. He may gain from the use of the GPL and give nothing back if he doesn't pass along his software based on GPL software. In that sense, the focus of the GPL is not the upstream developer, but the downstream user. That's more or less what happened at the start of WebKit. Apple got KHTML, changed a lot of its inhards and published the whole thing back when Safari was launched. A lot of KHTML developers complained Apple's code was very Mac-specific and a pain to integrate back into KHTML.
spicycat 16y ago
Ok, let's contrast several options and see where the freedom lies: First, the GPL software. It's copyrighted, but you can use it in spite of that if you follow the rules of the GPL. If not, then you have to obey copyright law. Second, proprietary software. This is copyrighted, and when you use it you usually have to agree to a contract and pay money for it. If you don't follow the contract, then it's copyrighted and you can't use it. Third, you write the software yourself. Well, you wrote it. It's copyrighted, but since YOU own the copyright, you get to decide what you use it in! The best, most free deal of them all, right? Basically if you don't like dealing with other people owning the copyrights, the ONLY option is to make it yourself.

sjs 16y ago

The problem is that nobody actually knows what constitutes a derivative work. Hence you have the LGPL for libraries so that you don't have to worry about linking them. The result is that nobody wants to risk tainting their work with GPL code if they're trying to make money. If it's GPL many people won't even look at it because who knows if someone who contributed a 2 line patch 10 years ago is going to come banging down your door with lawyers crying about violations. That's not what freedom is about. If you want your code to have the widest use possible go for BSD/MIT licenses. If you want to promote RMS' agenda go for the GPL.

cosgroveb 16y ago
You're not responding to the substance of my post. I said I wasn't commenting on whether or not the GPL actually promotes freedom. It just doesn't take it away. You and I are in total agreement here. If you want your code to have the widest possible distribution, use BSD/MIT licenses (I have done this). You have the freedom to do this and the existence of the GPL does not take your freedom away from you. You also have the freedom to decide not to use GPLed code. People have a sense of entitlement WRT open source code, I think. As if it's "open source," it should be under whatever terms they want not those of the original author. I think that's why so many people bitch about copyleft licenses.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  > People have a sense of entitlement WRT open source code, I think. As if it's "open source," it should be under whatever terms they want not those of the original author. I think that's why so many people bitch about copyleft licenses. That certainly isn't why I "bitch," as you say, as I realize that the author can do whatever he wishes. I do, however, make it a point to listen to my users; if my users have a philosophical disagreement over my choice of license, I take that into account in decisions on what to license in the future. That's the approach to software that I wish more developers would take: I have listened to your feedback, and I will take it into consideration. Your attitude, which is what I disagree so very strongly with, is that you didn't have to open-source the software at all, your users are lucky that you did, and you'll be damned if you'll consider feedback on your choice of licensing. It's "take it or leave it," which to the occasional user that wants to embed your code in something else, sucks a lot. There's been other comments in this thread to the effect of that "isn't [your] problem". If you're not interested in helping consumers of your software use it, why did you release it at all? I realize (believe me) that there is a line that must be drawn when it comes to listening to your users, but responding with "tough, rewrite it" is really a bummer to hear. Realistically, I think you're working against yourself with that take on your users.

chc 16y ago

How is that any more free than closed-source, proprietary software? You could just as easily say, "Don't like the terms of Photoshop's license? Go write your own then!" And unlike a GPL software vendor, Adobe couldn't turn around and sue you for creating a derivative work (because your brain hasn't been infected by any virally licensed source code). Anyway, the question of freedom between GPL and BSD is this: Does freedom include the ability to place restrictions on other people? The GPL tries to maximize freedom for everyone at the expense of freedom for each individual (the range of things you can do with GPL software is less than with BSD), while BSD allows the licensee almost total freedom to do what he wants, but doesn't guarantee that the freedom will be spread to others. It's kind of a quantity vs. quality thing.

cosgroveb 16y ago
I didn't say the GPL increased freedom. Only that it doesn't decrease it.
- chc 16y ago
  "Increase" and "decrease" are only meaningful in relation to some baseline. The GPL doesn't decrease freedom relative to nothing at all, and only a little bit relative to proprietary software. But relative to the BSD license, you have less freedom with the GPL. I'm using it in the sense that the FSF says proprietary software decreases freedom: It gives the people who receive it less freedom than it otherwise could.
sedachv 16y ago
Arguing the GPL is restricting your freedom to steal other's work is exactly the same as arguing that the 13th Amendment is restricting your freedom to own slaves.
- chc 16y ago
  The 13th amendment is restricting your freedom. It's called a tradeoff. That's my point.