5 ms·
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 o
by AsyncAwait 6y 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_ 6y agoWhat 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 6y 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_ 6y agoNo 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 6y agoEvery freedom takes away another's freedom to abuse it.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoFreedom isn't that well defined of a concept. Fo example I may say I have the freedom to not be blasted by your loud music, whereas you might say you have the freedom to play it. Both can be true to a certain extent and both are freedoms. It's just that the context and amount matters. If a judge decides that you're indeed infringing on my freedoms by blasting the music this loud, your own freedom will be restricted. The GPL does restrict the freedom to restrict the guarantees it provides.
- _ph_ 6y agoRight, but it tries to restrict the freedom of software authors to select the license they wish. It does try to restrict the freedom of the programmer to license the part of the software the programmer created.
- hvis 6y agoThat's not true. When you are the sole author of the program, you clearly can choose whatever license you wish. As long as you don't mooch off the efforts of others.
- nmz 6y agoFreedom is well defined, the freedom you speak of, requires a ruling body to exhert force. By implementing laws freedom itself is modified. Given that the FSF is not the ruling body of software, they should not have a say on what freedom entails. (which is why when speaking of licenses its best to refer as copyfree copyleft and so on.) IMO As a language that is used by all, its best to refer to freedom as copyfree. because that is the most loose definition and the least based on coercion.
- henvic 6y agoI have this dream where Linus Torvalds would just release his work under MIT/BSD/ISC/public domain...
- hvis 6y agoThe question of freedom comes when a user then comes to your software and then wants to: - Use the program for any purpose, - Freely examine the source code, - Make improvements and distribute them to others (in the spirit of being a good neighbor). These things sound very sensible, don't they? Do you disagree that they should be called "freedoms"? And those are the freedoms GPL helps protect.