3 ms·

>but the license should be about source code freedom This is not true, GPL is about "user freedom", repeat it 3 times, "USER" freedom. This is why it gates hat

>but the license should be about source code freedom This is not true, GPL is about "user freedom", repeat it 3 times, "USER" freedom. This is why it gates hate from some developers or entrepreneurs here, it removes the freedom of the developer to abuse the user or in recent cases companies to profit from community work and not give anything back or even harming the original project with FUD or unfair competition.

bombcar 6y ago
The developer is a user; in fact the whole point of the GPLv2 is that it should be the case that users CAN be developers. GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software; it's analogous to the "software cannot be used for evil" or "this software cannot be used in tanks" clauses on other licenses. And as Linus is arguing, it's perhaps a perfectly FINE license, but it is NOT the GPLv2 and it has different aims and desires: and he gives examples where if the kernel had the "and any other version" the GPLv3 could be used to do exactly what the GPLv2 is supposed to prevent - someone taking the code and modifying it and distributing it in a way so that he can't use the modifications.
- dTal 6y ago
  >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software No it doesn't. You can do whatever you want with GPLv3 software, provided you don't distribute it. It's disingenuous to use the word "developer" to equate "person who edits their own software" with "person who distributes software to others". Or if you disagree, can you articulate exactly what USER freedom you think is being infringed? "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face."
- marcodiego 6y ago
  >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software GPLv3 puts requirements on what a DEVELOPER can do with the code
- simion314 6y ago
  > The developer is a user then he should not put restrictions on other users then himself. The point is that all users should have the freedoms not only the developers, the only limitation is that you can't abuse users. A good example would be a quote I heard in a play of Uncle Tom's cabin (this was a translated and adapted so it might not be present exactly like this in the book). So in the play a french and some americans debate slavery and the salve owner says something like "America is the land of the free because we are free to own slaves" , like that slaver some companies and developers want to be more free to abuse others (put DRM to lock people, create proprietary formats, spy on users, nag them etc). IMO we all are free to chose the license for our work, and if anyone wants to make his work BSD or proprietary it is his rights, but they should not complain when someone chose GPL because he decided that he is concerned about user abuse.

bombcar 6y ago

The developer is a user; in fact the whole point of the GPLv2 is that it should be the case that users CAN be developers. GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software; it's analogous to the "software cannot be used for evil" or "this software cannot be used in tanks" clauses on other licenses. And as Linus is arguing, it's perhaps a perfectly FINE license, but it is NOT the GPLv2 and it has different aims and desires: and he gives examples where if the kernel had the "and any other version" the GPLv3 could be used to do exactly what the GPLv2 is supposed to prevent - someone taking the code and modifying it and distributing it in a way so that he can't use the modifications.

dTal 6y ago
>GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software No it doesn't. You can do whatever you want with GPLv3 software, provided you don't distribute it. It's disingenuous to use the word "developer" to equate "person who edits their own software" with "person who distributes software to others". Or if you disagree, can you articulate exactly what USER freedom you think is being infringed? "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face."
marcodiego 6y ago
>GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software GPLv3 puts requirements on what a DEVELOPER can do with the code
simion314 6y ago
> The developer is a user then he should not put restrictions on other users then himself. The point is that all users should have the freedoms not only the developers, the only limitation is that you can't abuse users. A good example would be a quote I heard in a play of Uncle Tom's cabin (this was a translated and adapted so it might not be present exactly like this in the book). So in the play a french and some americans debate slavery and the salve owner says something like "America is the land of the free because we are free to own slaves" , like that slaver some companies and developers want to be more free to abuse others (put DRM to lock people, create proprietary formats, spy on users, nag them etc). IMO we all are free to chose the license for our work, and if anyone wants to make his work BSD or proprietary it is his rights, but they should not complain when someone chose GPL because he decided that he is concerned about user abuse.