3 ms·

It's arguable that GPL software is not free (as in freedom). It imposes a cost on some people, but not others. The people who pay are those who modify the sour

It's arguable that GPL software is not free (as in freedom). It imposes a cost on some people, but not others. The people who pay are those who modify the source code and want to distribute the result without contributing their modifications. It doesn't affect users of the software, only people with the skills and motivation to update and improve the software. These people are forced to provide their labor for free if they want to use the software for their purpose. This of course is by design. But to me the irony is that it disproportionately ends up affecting mostly small programmers and developers who rely on OSS to make an income, while users, notably large corporations who provide cloud services and manufacture hardware, etc, profit handsomely without being forced to contribute any of their money or labor. Of course AGPL attempts to fix this, but it's only really targeted at some corporate users and the small developer is still at a severe disadvantage.

sneak 6y ago
> The people who pay are those who modify the source code and want to distribute the result without contributing their modifications. This seems to be a very narrow view of "pay". The effort is in the modification, which is already "paid" by the time they are required to distribute sources. > These people are forced to provide their labor for free if they want to use the software for their purpose. I don't think this is an accurate description of the state of affairs. Nobody's forced, and the labor doesn't have to be free, either. Many people are paid to develop free software.
herewulf 6y ago
I'm a small developer who is quite grateful for the millions of hours of work I didn't have to do or pay for, upon which I build my own software. I've worked on dozens of projects that would have been impossible without GPL'd software readily available to use.
- jimmyvalmer 6y ago
  Yes, bro. Everyone sermonizing about software that's "free as in speech, not as in beer," misses the larger point that 99% of us only really care about the beer part.
samatman 6y ago
Well I happen to agree with you, but it's a tough argument to get into on the Internet, so I avoid it when possible. To me, a license like MIT is "obviously" more free than GPL, which is more restrictive. The FSF has a somewhat circuitous argument for how GPL results in more net freedom, somehow, but I don't buy it. Both are free enough, I suppose. There's something about the FSF project of using the master's tools (copyright restrictions) to dismantle the master's house (copyright itself) that's never sat entirely right with me. The solution is easy though: use a permissive license to release my software. So I do.
- wrycoder 6y ago
  Yes, the GPL is deliberately more restrictive. Put briefly, it’s designed to prevent someone from taking your software and releasing it under a license more restrictive than the GPL itself. It enforces the right to run the software, study it, distribute changed versions, and benefit from other people’s changes. With the MIT license, anyone can take the software you wrote, change it to add features, wrap it up in a fancy package, and sell it without source code access. You wouldn’t be able to even run the new version without buying a copy. Stallman has been explaining this for nearly forty years. He even wrote a book about it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-selected-essays-richard-m-stallman-3rd-edition https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-s...

sneak 6y ago

> The people who pay are those who modify the source code and want to distribute the result without contributing their modifications. This seems to be a very narrow view of "pay". The effort is in the modification, which is already "paid" by the time they are required to distribute sources. > These people are forced to provide their labor for free if they want to use the software for their purpose. I don't think this is an accurate description of the state of affairs. Nobody's forced, and the labor doesn't have to be free, either. Many people are paid to develop free software.

herewulf 6y ago

I'm a small developer who is quite grateful for the millions of hours of work I didn't have to do or pay for, upon which I build my own software. I've worked on dozens of projects that would have been impossible without GPL'd software readily available to use.

jimmyvalmer 6y ago
Yes, bro. Everyone sermonizing about software that's "free as in speech, not as in beer," misses the larger point that 99% of us only really care about the beer part.

samatman 6y ago

Well I happen to agree with you, but it's a tough argument to get into on the Internet, so I avoid it when possible. To me, a license like MIT is "obviously" more free than GPL, which is more restrictive. The FSF has a somewhat circuitous argument for how GPL results in more net freedom, somehow, but I don't buy it. Both are free enough, I suppose. There's something about the FSF project of using the master's tools (copyright restrictions) to dismantle the master's house (copyright itself) that's never sat entirely right with me. The solution is easy though: use a permissive license to release my software. So I do.

wrycoder 6y ago
Yes, the GPL is deliberately more restrictive. Put briefly, it’s designed to prevent someone from taking your software and releasing it under a license more restrictive than the GPL itself. It enforces the right to run the software, study it, distribute changed versions, and benefit from other people’s changes. With the MIT license, anyone can take the software you wrote, change it to add features, wrap it up in a fancy package, and sell it without source code access. You wouldn’t be able to even run the new version without buying a copy. Stallman has been explaining this for nearly forty years. He even wrote a book about it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-selected-essays-richard-m-stallman-3rd-edition https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-s...