6 ms·

Stallman is also totally full of it since anything GPL is not actually free software. The BSD or MIT licenses are superior because you're then free to use the s

Stallman is also totally full of it since anything GPL is not actually free software. The BSD or MIT licenses are superior because you're then free to use the software as you wish, wheras with the GPL you're constrained in how you use it.

lupinglade 6y ago
Exactly. GPL is not free software in the real sense of the word.
- kazinator 6y ago
  Both the BSD2 licenses and GPL licenses try to legally prevent the existence of something. The BSD2 license tries to legally prevent the existence of the source code without the copyright notice preserved. The GPL license tries to prevent (1) binary code distributed without matching, buildable source code (2) source code or binary code redistributed in combination with GPL-incompatible pieces, (3) ... BSD argument: the fewer things whose existence a license tries to prevent, the freer it is. GNU argument: existence of certain things impinges on freedom; if we curtail their existence, we increase freedom. The only way in which the GNU argument rings true for me is that users of proprietary software unwittingly create a world in which people who would like to avoid proprietary software are effectively coerced into using it. The choice not to use it exists, but at the cost of being economically or socially disadvantaged in some way. A software choice that doesn't affect anyone else is strictly personal, even if it is uninformed; it is itself an exercise in freedom. E.g. if someone makes a binary-only screensaver program for GNU/Linux that costs $5.99 (and contains no malware or anything of the source) the choice to use it is of no consequence. If someone likes that screensaver, it's their choice and their $5.99, and it doesn't affect anyone else even in the same household or organization.
mhh__ 6y ago
Freedom for the users. I am totally disinterested in the freedom of companies.
- bifrost 6y ago
  I as a user can't use GPL'ed software freely.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    When was the last time you redistributed modified software as a user? You can benefit from free software without ever writing a line of code.
    - bifrost 6y ago
      Not that long ago, its why I primarily use BSD/MIT/etc licensed software.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        And you weren't happy giving out the source code? Even if you weren't charging money for this I'm struggling to be sympathetic
      - 411111111111111 6y ago
        In what context? I currently struggle imaging a situation. There is no obligation to upstream anything after all, you just gotta provide the code if someone asks... And why would you care as a user?
    - russh 6y ago
      Yesterday.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        Example?
    - hakfoo 6y ago
      I could see it for things like electronics projects where the firmware gets modified as a form of configuration. You might want to give out or sell customized devices, adapted to the specific user or deployment. The end user typically only wants the binary, so distributing the source is at best a good-faith-waste-of-time and at worst an opportunity to cause support problems. The example I'm thinking of is keyboards running QMK firmware-- it's literally customized by editing a bunch of C and recompiling.

lupinglade 6y ago

Exactly. GPL is not free software in the real sense of the word.

kazinator 6y ago
Both the BSD2 licenses and GPL licenses try to legally prevent the existence of something. The BSD2 license tries to legally prevent the existence of the source code without the copyright notice preserved. The GPL license tries to prevent (1) binary code distributed without matching, buildable source code (2) source code or binary code redistributed in combination with GPL-incompatible pieces, (3) ... BSD argument: the fewer things whose existence a license tries to prevent, the freer it is. GNU argument: existence of certain things impinges on freedom; if we curtail their existence, we increase freedom. The only way in which the GNU argument rings true for me is that users of proprietary software unwittingly create a world in which people who would like to avoid proprietary software are effectively coerced into using it. The choice not to use it exists, but at the cost of being economically or socially disadvantaged in some way. A software choice that doesn't affect anyone else is strictly personal, even if it is uninformed; it is itself an exercise in freedom. E.g. if someone makes a binary-only screensaver program for GNU/Linux that costs $5.99 (and contains no malware or anything of the source) the choice to use it is of no consequence. If someone likes that screensaver, it's their choice and their $5.99, and it doesn't affect anyone else even in the same household or organization.

mhh__ 6y ago

Freedom for the users. I am totally disinterested in the freedom of companies.

bifrost 6y ago
I as a user can't use GPL'ed software freely.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  When was the last time you redistributed modified software as a user? You can benefit from free software without ever writing a line of code.
  - bifrost 6y ago
    Not that long ago, its why I primarily use BSD/MIT/etc licensed software.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      And you weren't happy giving out the source code? Even if you weren't charging money for this I'm struggling to be sympathetic
    - 411111111111111 6y ago
      In what context? I currently struggle imaging a situation. There is no obligation to upstream anything after all, you just gotta provide the code if someone asks... And why would you care as a user?
  - russh 6y ago
    Yesterday.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Example?
  - hakfoo 6y ago
    I could see it for things like electronics projects where the firmware gets modified as a form of configuration. You might want to give out or sell customized devices, adapted to the specific user or deployment. The end user typically only wants the binary, so distributing the source is at best a good-faith-waste-of-time and at worst an opportunity to cause support problems. The example I'm thinking of is keyboards running QMK firmware-- it's literally customized by editing a bunch of C and recompiling.