4 ms·
We probably do have different definitions of freedom. My definition is along the lines of yours ends where mine starts, whereas yours sounds more like 'absolut
by AsyncAwait 6y ago
We probably do have different definitions of freedom.
My definition is along the lines of yours ends where mine starts, whereas yours sounds more like 'absolute freedom'.
You're right to an extent, the GPL does place certain obligations on the users, in particular to maintain (at least) the level of freedom they themselves were given, which naturally limits what one can do to an extent.
P.S. Yes, it all depends on copyright law, BSD does too, otherwise public domain would suffice.
- _ph_ 6y agoFunny that GPL does violate your definition of freedom. Because it doesn't end where my freedom starts. It tries to impose a new license of my software linked to the GPL software. And it imposes obligations to the user beyond what the user was given.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoYou do not have the freedom to just take "my" code and do whatever. The moment you include my GPL'd code, you're stepping onto my ground and thus need to abide by some rules I set out for those that do. You're still free to not use my code, but not to do as you wish if you do, because at that moment you're stepping onto my own freedom.
- _ph_ 6y agoI haven't claimed that I am free to do what I wish to do, nor do I ask for that. The point is, that the GPL contradicts what you stated before "yours ends where mine starts". GPL tries to exactly cross that line.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoThe "your end where mine starts" means precisely that your ability to do whatever ends when you decide to use my code, because that is where my freedom to impose certain requirements on your usage of my code starts. There's nothing the GPL tries to cross, that's exactly what that quote means in general society as well. For example, you're free to wear the same shoes you do outside in your own house, but if you're coming into my own house, I have the freedom to require you not to do that.
- _ph_ 6y agoYes you have. Telling me to wear different shoes once I visited your house is something different. So if you think that is a reasonable request, then I have to tell you that I will refrain from visiting your house. And advise others to be very considerate about visiting your house.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoWhat makes telling you to wear different shoes any different? I am just asking you to abide by my rules if you're going to make use of my resources. The GPL does the same. And yes, you're free to refrain from visiting my house if you disagree with what I am asking of you, same as you're free to not use GPL code and therefore not abide by its requirements. The only thing you are not free to do is come to my house and ignore my rules, likewise use GPL code and ignore the GPL. That's it.
- _ph_ 6y agoI don't mind abiding to your rules when I come to your house and while I stay in your house. I find it bizarre that you think that you can impose rules onto me after I left your house and even ask me to impose the rules onto others.
- DanBC 6y agoHow do you feel about NDAs or official secrets?
- ferzul 6y agoyou're free to do anything with gpl software that you would be free to do in the absence of the gpl. consequently it in no way limits any freedom; the freedom has been limited by applicable law. if this is a problem you need to take it up with the relevant legislators in your area. complaining that the fsf or another publisher only returns most of your freedom isn't exactly fair. they have returned most of your freedom but retained the amount that would allow you to restrict someone else's freedom. you only want off them the freedom to restrict someone else's freedom, so it's hypocritical; if there is some benefit to this freedom, then they have fairly exercised it and you lost out. (i find the fsf's argument that dynamic linking is illegal in the absence of a licence a long bow to draw tho.)
- tpxl 6y agoGPL gives freedom to the end user of the software, while (for example) MIT gives freedom to the programmer. People who think GPL is less free than MIT missed the point of freedom GPL is about.
- _ph_ 6y agoWithout the programmer crafting a program using e.g. a library, there is no software and no end user. You cannot separate the end user from the programmer. And to repeat myself: requiring to make the source available for any GPL software in a project is absolutely a reasonable request. Requiring to relicense other parts of the software, isn't.
- tpxl 6y ago>You cannot separate the end user from the programmer. Bullshit. The only thing GPL requires you to do is to extend the same freedoms granted to you to the user. >Requiring to relicense other parts of the software, isn't. You can absolutely use GPL software without relicensing everything else - split the part that requires use of GPL and extend the freedoms to your users.
- _ph_ 6y agoObviously, if the GPL software is a complete application, then that works. See Emacs, see GCC, see Linux. But not in the space of libraries, where I can't use anything GPLed without relicensing my software.
- cercatrova 6y agoWhy not relicense your software then?
- _ph_ 6y agoBecause the license was chosen with a clear reason. And if that license was not GPL (otherwise the discussion would be moot), this is not an option.