3 ms·

I will likely be downvoted for saying this, but fuck it. This "copyleft is free (as in freedom)" claim bothers me. Copyleft is not free (as in freedom). Its mo

I will likely be downvoted for saying this, but fuck it. This "copyleft is free (as in freedom)" claim bothers me. Copyleft is not free (as in freedom). Its more like free (but this gun pointed at your temple will shoot if you do not agree with The One True Philosophy). That doesn't sound like freedom to me; more like thinly veiled tyranny. (I suppose this is mostly the fault of the redefinition of a derivative work, but that's a separate issue). My definition of freedom means that every individual has the right to their own One True Philosophy, whatever that may be. Wanna write your software in the nude (as in publicly)? Be my guest. Wanna write code for Dept. of Defense missiles (which probably should never, ever be public)? Go nuts, IDGAF. Etc, etc. The GPL is a mistake for software development. I don't mean that just because of what I said above. It's a mistake because of its infectious nature. Whether or not you or I agree (or any reason, it doesn't matter), you must comply. Like a Borg drone, with no freedom. With a non-copyleft licence, any library will still be useful no matter the licence of the software it's linked to (well, except the aforementioned GPL-ed code). See libstdc++ for an example: if it really were vanilla GPL, nobody would use the STL (or at least, not GCC's STL)! (Written on my Kubuntu workstation).

AsyncAwait 7y ago
As I said elsewhere, I do understand where you're coming from. My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts, there's also a sort of 'absolute freedom', in the right-leaning libertarian kind of sense i.e. as long as one has the manpower to do it, they can do it. This just sounds like actual tyranny, if you ask me. The BSD is probably a lot closer to that 'absolute freedom', (not entirely, still requires you to preserve certain copyright texts for example public domain is probably closest). The GPL simply limits your ability to pass on less guarantees with the software you're distributing than you yourself have received.
- asdkjh345fd 7y ago
  >My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts That's everyone else's definition too. The disagreement comes from you having the underlying assumption that producing non-GPL software is causing harm, while other people do not share that assumption. Everyone agrees that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, because everyone agrees that punching me is causing harm. But a lot of people do not consider writing software to be causing harm, so they do not see a valid reason to prohibit people from writing software.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    GPL is about not passing less freedom to your users than you yourself received. That's it. You're free not to use GPL'd software, but the moment you do, it's authors are free to impose certain requirements on you, such that you preserve the freedom they gave you for your downstream users.
    - asdkjh345fd 7y ago
      You're simply ignoring what I said and talking past it.
hvis 7y ago
> (Written on my Kubuntu workstation) Exactly. Don't be a bee protesting against honey.

AsyncAwait 7y ago

As I said elsewhere, I do understand where you're coming from. My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts, there's also a sort of 'absolute freedom', in the right-leaning libertarian kind of sense i.e. as long as one has the manpower to do it, they can do it. This just sounds like actual tyranny, if you ask me. The BSD is probably a lot closer to that 'absolute freedom', (not entirely, still requires you to preserve certain copyright texts for example public domain is probably closest). The GPL simply limits your ability to pass on less guarantees with the software you're distributing than you yourself have received.

asdkjh345fd 7y ago
>My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts That's everyone else's definition too. The disagreement comes from you having the underlying assumption that producing non-GPL software is causing harm, while other people do not share that assumption. Everyone agrees that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, because everyone agrees that punching me is causing harm. But a lot of people do not consider writing software to be causing harm, so they do not see a valid reason to prohibit people from writing software.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  GPL is about not passing less freedom to your users than you yourself received. That's it. You're free not to use GPL'd software, but the moment you do, it's authors are free to impose certain requirements on you, such that you preserve the freedom they gave you for your downstream users.
  - asdkjh345fd 7y ago
    You're simply ignoring what I said and talking past it.

hvis 7y ago

> (Written on my Kubuntu workstation) Exactly. Don't be a bee protesting against honey.