5 ms·

GPL 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 t

by tpxl 7y ago

GPL 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_ 7y ago
Without 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 7y 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_ 7y ago
    Obviously, 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 7y ago
      Why not relicense your software then?
      - _ph_ 7y ago
        Because 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.
      - nmz 7y ago
        There are many domains where the GPL is not applicable, gaming for one, requires the source to be secret, or else you'll allow anyone to build and release the game easily and thus not recuperating costs of production. This is why most lua libraries are MIT, as something that is heavily used in games, using anything other than is not applicable. It is also the reason rms created the lgpl, as a copyleft library that wont relicense software that depends on it.
        ric2b 7y ago
        > gaming for one, requires the source to be secret, or else you'll allow anyone to build and release the game easily and thus not recuperating costs of production. The engine is not the game, it's missing all the assets (3D models, textures, audio, scripts, etc). The assets don't need to be GPL-licensed. Most games use one of the few popular game engines: Unreal Engine, Source or Unity, which while not being open-source, are available to anyone and make it possible for anyone to build and release games with them. That doesn't stop them from making money.
        cercatrova 7y ago
        The code and logic of games can be open source (look at Dwarf Fortress or ports of Doom) while the assets are still closed source. The bigger fear I always see is that someone will steal the code and run it without paying. In reality, this almost never happens. People don't care enough to run their own version of the game, or any other software.
    - belorn 7y ago
      Thats wrong. You can put all your work under any permissible license and use any GPL library. The same is true for anyone who get the work from you. No need to re-license anything. Large programs often use multiple different software licenses without having to relicensing everything to be the same. They just have to be compatible.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  You keep saying that requiring other parts of the software to be relicensed isn't reasonable. It's obviously a matter of opinion, but if your program depends on my code, my code is obviously a part of your program, thus it does not seem unreasonable that you pass the same freedoms to your own users as I gave to you when you were starting and my library saved you time and perhaps made sure that your program was on time and budget.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    What is reasonable is indeed a matter of opinion, where not conflicting with laws. You have to accept then though, that what you consider a reasonable demand, might be unreasonable to others, if not offensive. And please, stop abusing the term "freedom". If the FSF would be honest, they would pitch the GPL without misleading terms. It is amusing, that Linux is one of the most prominent GPL software used, but the FSF managed to antagonize its maintainer.
    - tpxl 7y ago
      >And please, stop abusing the term "freedom". GPL uses freedom correctly, it's just not freedom to the programmer, but to the end user. No dishonesty, no misleading and no abuse.
      - _ph_ 7y ago
        No it abuses the concept, because while it claims to assert freedoms, at the same time it tries to takes away others. And the representation of this by the FSF is deceptive. They managed to antagonize Linus Torwalds entirely this way. A person, who should be their strongest supporter.
        tpxl 7y ago
        Every freedom takes away another's freedom to abuse it.
    - AsyncAwait 7y ago

by tpxl 7y ago

GPL 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_ 7y ago

Without 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 7y 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_ 7y ago
  Obviously, 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 7y ago
    Why not relicense your software then?
    - _ph_ 7y ago
      Because 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.
    - nmz 7y ago
      There are many domains where the GPL is not applicable, gaming for one, requires the source to be secret, or else you'll allow anyone to build and release the game easily and thus not recuperating costs of production. This is why most lua libraries are MIT, as something that is heavily used in games, using anything other than is not applicable. It is also the reason rms created the lgpl, as a copyleft library that wont relicense software that depends on it.
      - ric2b 7y ago
        > gaming for one, requires the source to be secret, or else you'll allow anyone to build and release the game easily and thus not recuperating costs of production. The engine is not the game, it's missing all the assets (3D models, textures, audio, scripts, etc). The assets don't need to be GPL-licensed. Most games use one of the few popular game engines: Unreal Engine, Source or Unity, which while not being open-source, are available to anyone and make it possible for anyone to build and release games with them. That doesn't stop them from making money.
      - cercatrova 7y ago
        The code and logic of games can be open source (look at Dwarf Fortress or ports of Doom) while the assets are still closed source. The bigger fear I always see is that someone will steal the code and run it without paying. In reality, this almost never happens. People don't care enough to run their own version of the game, or any other software.
  - belorn 7y ago
    Thats wrong. You can put all your work under any permissible license and use any GPL library. The same is true for anyone who get the work from you. No need to re-license anything. Large programs often use multiple different software licenses without having to relicensing everything to be the same. They just have to be compatible.
AsyncAwait 7y ago
You keep saying that requiring other parts of the software to be relicensed isn't reasonable. It's obviously a matter of opinion, but if your program depends on my code, my code is obviously a part of your program, thus it does not seem unreasonable that you pass the same freedoms to your own users as I gave to you when you were starting and my library saved you time and perhaps made sure that your program was on time and budget.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  What is reasonable is indeed a matter of opinion, where not conflicting with laws. You have to accept then though, that what you consider a reasonable demand, might be unreasonable to others, if not offensive. And please, stop abusing the term "freedom". If the FSF would be honest, they would pitch the GPL without misleading terms. It is amusing, that Linux is one of the most prominent GPL software used, but the FSF managed to antagonize its maintainer.
  - tpxl 7y ago
    >And please, stop abusing the term "freedom". GPL uses freedom correctly, it's just not freedom to the programmer, but to the end user. No dishonesty, no misleading and no abuse.
    - _ph_ 7y ago
      No it abuses the concept, because while it claims to assert freedoms, at the same time it tries to takes away others. And the representation of this by the FSF is deceptive. They managed to antagonize Linus Torwalds entirely this way. A person, who should be their strongest supporter.
      - tpxl 7y ago
        Every freedom takes away another's freedom to abuse it.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago