3 ms·

I recognise your comments from several different threads, and I'm wondering if you might not be working against your own ideals. The GPL license is intended to

I recognise your comments from several different threads, and I'm wondering if you might not be working against your own ideals. The GPL license is intended to persuade other sources to share their contributions when building on top, which I assume is what you would like to see happen. If everything is GPL then everything is open source, everyone can use anything, including training AI methods, etc. The problem posed with copilot is in fact the opposite. By taking it to its logical conclusion, this might make it possible to disregard this effort and use GPL code on your private project.

pabs3 5y ago
The GPL isn't about sharing contributions back to the project, but ensuring the end-users have the source code and permission to use, modify and share it.
- okamiueru 5y ago
  Did you mean to say that "GPL isn't just about sharing ..."? It most certainly is part of the intention behind GPL. Changes to GPL software must be disclosed and made open source. If you as an end user want to modify the source code for your own use, then that is fine. If you want to distribute it, you must state the changes, and you must also do so for any code it is linked with. The original maintainers are then also free to incorporate said changes should they chose.
  - pabs3 5y ago
    Nothing in the GPL requires making changes public or sharing them with the developers of the project. You only have to give your changes to people you give your modified binaries to. You never have to give your changes back to the upstream project. So AFAICT the GPL is about user freedom rather than sharing and any sharing that happens is a side effect of user freedom. There are organisations who make changes and share them with their customers but not with the wider community. There might be situations where sharing publicly could lead to detrimental effects, Debian's "Desert Island", "Dissident" and "Tentacles of Evil" tests are some examples of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
breck 5y ago
If we abolish copyright then there is no need for GPL. I am so forever grateful for GPL, as Stallman and the like weaponized copyright against itself, and then gave us crystal clear data that open source software is strictly superior in the long run. But even if only 1% of ideas were copyrighted, that is still a tax on the use of all ideas. In a world without copyright, I can download any dataset at will and analyze and remix it to my heart's content, and share my findings. But in a world with copyright, if there was one "copyrighted" land mine in there I open myself up to financial ruin. So one must tread carefully when working with any external ideas.

pabs3 5y ago

The GPL isn't about sharing contributions back to the project, but ensuring the end-users have the source code and permission to use, modify and share it.

okamiueru 5y ago
Did you mean to say that "GPL isn't just about sharing ..."? It most certainly is part of the intention behind GPL. Changes to GPL software must be disclosed and made open source. If you as an end user want to modify the source code for your own use, then that is fine. If you want to distribute it, you must state the changes, and you must also do so for any code it is linked with. The original maintainers are then also free to incorporate said changes should they chose.
- pabs3 5y ago
  Nothing in the GPL requires making changes public or sharing them with the developers of the project. You only have to give your changes to people you give your modified binaries to. You never have to give your changes back to the upstream project. So AFAICT the GPL is about user freedom rather than sharing and any sharing that happens is a side effect of user freedom. There are organisations who make changes and share them with their customers but not with the wider community. There might be situations where sharing publicly could lead to detrimental effects, Debian's "Desert Island", "Dissident" and "Tentacles of Evil" tests are some examples of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html

breck 5y ago

If we abolish copyright then there is no need for GPL. I am so forever grateful for GPL, as Stallman and the like weaponized copyright against itself, and then gave us crystal clear data that open source software is strictly superior in the long run. But even if only 1% of ideas were copyrighted, that is still a tax on the use of all ideas. In a world without copyright, I can download any dataset at will and analyze and remix it to my heart's content, and share my findings. But in a world with copyright, if there was one "copyrighted" land mine in there I open myself up to financial ruin. So one must tread carefully when working with any external ideas.