4 ms·

The GNU Foundation--and the GPL--put one thing at its most important focus: that "users"--the people who are actually using the software and entrusting it with

by saurik 5y ago

The GNU Foundation--and the GPL--put one thing at its most important focus: that "users"--the people who are actually using the software and entrusting it with their data or their lives--have guaranteed freedoms. People--such as myself--who use the GPL believe that these freedoms are extremely important: that "users" should be able to get access to the source code for programs and be able to modify them (...and before anyone whines "but users don't know how to modify programs", users know how to hire people to modify programs... most people also don't know how to do woodworking or autowork and yet people routinely get their cabinets done or their cars tricked out: a healthy aftermarket for software exists, and in fact if you look at stuff like jailbreaks for phones, advertising "we jailbreak your phone here" was a good way for such stores to make money). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReKCp9K_Jqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReKCp9K_Jqw If you believe that users should have such freedom, then letting someone who isn't a "user"--and I think this is where people get so stuck on forums like this, as most of the people here are developers and they want everything to be maximally biased in their favor--be able to modify your software and then not grant the freedoms we GPL-folk care about to actual "users" is unacceptable: it simply isn't why we are writing open source software, as the open source part is supposed to be able to benefit "users". So it frankly shouldn't be at all confusing why the GPL has the properties it does: if you think my open source code is so beneficial to your project that you want to use it in your project, you are more than welcome to do so!!! Only... you have to be willing to respect the freedom / rights of "users" that is codified in the license.

jokoon 5y ago
> and then not grant the freedoms we GPL-folk care about to actual "users" is unacceptable: it simply isn't why we are writing open source software, as the open source part is supposed to be able to benefit "users". Why is it unacceptable? Why are people writing open source software then? "Benefiting users" can be done in various ways. In my view, the GPL only manages to protest and protect software against the problems of intellectual property, copyright and capitalism. It's only about politics. I agree with the sentiment, but that's really all it does, it doesn't solve legal problems. I'm curious to see which software licensed under BSD or similar suffered problems where the GPL would have protected them against.
- drran 5y ago
  > Why is it unacceptable? Because, very often, we ARE users of our own software, so, we don't want the licensee of the code to forbid the licensor of the code his right to modify his own code on his own device.
vsw02 5y ago
You kind of gave up the game by pointing out that GPL-folk distinguish between developers and users. It’s the key flaw in the GPL approach and all you need do is scroll a little bit to find a developer being told to fuck off for merely questioning the source disclosure requirement of GPL. Why do the authors of software command less respect than users thereof from those ostensibly working to elevate software? Developers are users too. They use code. The GPL community’s insistence on segmenting those two groups and valuing the needs of one over the other for the last thirty years has led to way more angry threads than the world has ever needed. A community built upon unassailable rights granted to one class whilst mandating behaviors in another is somewhat incongruent at its base because it doesn’t track with unconscious notions of fairness and equality that most people carry. It also explains why developers are usually the one chirping about it, because they’re the second class in this picture. How that remains elusive after all the bloodsport and drama over this license is something I’m not sure I’ll ever understand. I say that understanding the entire rationale, by the way. I absolutely get why both sides say what they say and I’m not disputing what you’re fighting for. Negotiation at gunpoint is what it is (again, scroll), and despite fighting what is otherwise a good fight worth believing in, expecting those at gunpoint to go along with no complaints is a bit naive in itself and a shocking lack of communal social understanding among the free software community. “Why won’t they work with us? We are telling them exactly what to do” is a self-evident position. So instead we do this thread on HN and Slashdot and whatever every few weeks and get it out of our systems, then go back to status quo of not understanding each other nor why either side is much interested in engaging the other. It’s honestly puzzling that people still try.
- yosamino 5y ago
  > Developers are users too. They use code. The whole point of the GPL is that the reverse is true as well. If I - the user of the software - wants to become a developer of this software I can only do so if I have access to the source code. That is not "mandating behaviour", if you are the original developer of a piece of software, you are free to take it closed source any time you wish. If you benefitted from having the code of your software available to you, why would you want the right to prevent someone else to benefit in the same way ? I am genuinely curious why that makes you feel so attacked.
shadowgovt 5y ago
That's the standard interpretation of the Four Freedoms. Unfortunately, I think it ignores that most users can't code. The Four Freedoms, practically, protect developers and the freedom to hack. These are good things to protect, but it's not the same as protecting the interests of users. It can be argued that GPL'd code (in contrast to a license such as BSD) is less a net positive for users because the constraints the GPL places on how code may be used (requiring any user to expose modifications made to the GPL'd code along with a subset of the code connected to the modified code) means that some developers may not choose to use that code in their application. This results in fewer applications, which means fewer ways for users to solve their problems. For Carmack in particular, I think that's the argument he's making. Carmack's goal isn't to guarantee developers maximum freedom to hack; his goal is to get his code in as many places as possible (because he prides himself on being the smartest guy in the room, and the more people use his code the more proof there is of that assertion). Maximal code adoption is not served by a GPL license; the GPL license sacrifices a bit of that opportunity to protect the developers' freedom to hack.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Most people can't maintain their cars or renovate their homes. But they benefit from independent mechanics and contractors.
jancsika 5y ago
I'm curious-- why don't GPL advocates ever flip the argument back on the proprietary devs? E.g., You are a developer of proprietary software. Your aim is to provide the same freedoms in practice that users enjoy in GPL'd software. What do you do? There is a sensible and real answer here-- custom software development. If a user is paying a dev/dev-team to build that user some custom software, then barring fraud they have full control over what the software does. Plus, custom software and custom software development probably make up a huge chunk of the dev economy. But notice that this is nearly never what GPL opponents are talking about. (In fact there is surely overlap between GPL'd software and custom software dev.) Instead they talk about consumer applications, games, etc.-- software which does not give its users the same freedoms as GPL'd software. In this class of software, there must then be an implicit premise: either the freedoms that end-users enjoy in both GPL'd software and custom software do not matter, or some other novel argument that downplays both the practical and ethical benefits of those freedoms. And here's the thing-- whatever the implicit argument is, it runs counter to the spirit of both GPL'd software and custom software dev. GPL advocates ought to use this argument to split the opposition between custom software development (regardless of license) on the one hand, and whatever the word is for proprietary software that aims to lock users into a system they can't control on the other. Btw, the fact that I can't think of the word for the second category is a red flag that GPL advocates do a shit job with their propaganda. :) Edit: clarification
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Proprietary software means software controlled by another party. Custom software includes all rights usually. Most custom software clients want full ownership. Not a copyleft license. So most custom software developers look at licensing the same as most proprietary software developers. They want other developers to use permissive licenses because it makes their job easier.

by saurik 5y ago

jokoon 5y ago

> and then not grant the freedoms we GPL-folk care about to actual "users" is unacceptable: it simply isn't why we are writing open source software, as the open source part is supposed to be able to benefit "users". Why is it unacceptable? Why are people writing open source software then? "Benefiting users" can be done in various ways. In my view, the GPL only manages to protest and protect software against the problems of intellectual property, copyright and capitalism. It's only about politics. I agree with the sentiment, but that's really all it does, it doesn't solve legal problems. I'm curious to see which software licensed under BSD or similar suffered problems where the GPL would have protected them against.

drran 5y ago
> Why is it unacceptable? Because, very often, we ARE users of our own software, so, we don't want the licensee of the code to forbid the licensor of the code his right to modify his own code on his own device.

vsw02 5y ago

You kind of gave up the game by pointing out that GPL-folk distinguish between developers and users. It’s the key flaw in the GPL approach and all you need do is scroll a little bit to find a developer being told to fuck off for merely questioning the source disclosure requirement of GPL. Why do the authors of software command less respect than users thereof from those ostensibly working to elevate software? Developers are users too. They use code. The GPL community’s insistence on segmenting those two groups and valuing the needs of one over the other for the last thirty years has led to way more angry threads than the world has ever needed. A community built upon unassailable rights granted to one class whilst mandating behaviors in another is somewhat incongruent at its base because it doesn’t track with unconscious notions of fairness and equality that most people carry. It also explains why developers are usually the one chirping about it, because they’re the second class in this picture. How that remains elusive after all the bloodsport and drama over this license is something I’m not sure I’ll ever understand. I say that understanding the entire rationale, by the way. I absolutely get why both sides say what they say and I’m not disputing what you’re fighting for. Negotiation at gunpoint is what it is (again, scroll), and despite fighting what is otherwise a good fight worth believing in, expecting those at gunpoint to go along with no complaints is a bit naive in itself and a shocking lack of communal social understanding among the free software community. “Why won’t they work with us? We are telling them exactly what to do” is a self-evident position. So instead we do this thread on HN and Slashdot and whatever every few weeks and get it out of our systems, then go back to status quo of not understanding each other nor why either side is much interested in engaging the other. It’s honestly puzzling that people still try.

yosamino 5y ago
> Developers are users too. They use code. The whole point of the GPL is that the reverse is true as well. If I - the user of the software - wants to become a developer of this software I can only do so if I have access to the source code. That is not "mandating behaviour", if you are the original developer of a piece of software, you are free to take it closed source any time you wish. If you benefitted from having the code of your software available to you, why would you want the right to prevent someone else to benefit in the same way ? I am genuinely curious why that makes you feel so attacked.

shadowgovt 5y ago

That's the standard interpretation of the Four Freedoms. Unfortunately, I think it ignores that most users can't code. The Four Freedoms, practically, protect developers and the freedom to hack. These are good things to protect, but it's not the same as protecting the interests of users. It can be argued that GPL'd code (in contrast to a license such as BSD) is less a net positive for users because the constraints the GPL places on how code may be used (requiring any user to expose modifications made to the GPL'd code along with a subset of the code connected to the modified code) means that some developers may not choose to use that code in their application. This results in fewer applications, which means fewer ways for users to solve their problems. For Carmack in particular, I think that's the argument he's making. Carmack's goal isn't to guarantee developers maximum freedom to hack; his goal is to get his code in as many places as possible (because he prides himself on being the smartest guy in the room, and the more people use his code the more proof there is of that assertion). Maximal code adoption is not served by a GPL license; the GPL license sacrifices a bit of that opportunity to protect the developers' freedom to hack.

pseudalopex 5y ago
Most people can't maintain their cars or renovate their homes. But they benefit from independent mechanics and contractors.

jancsika 5y ago

I'm curious-- why don't GPL advocates ever flip the argument back on the proprietary devs? E.g., You are a developer of proprietary software. Your aim is to provide the same freedoms in practice that users enjoy in GPL'd software. What do you do? There is a sensible and real answer here-- custom software development. If a user is paying a dev/dev-team to build that user some custom software, then barring fraud they have full control over what the software does. Plus, custom software and custom software development probably make up a huge chunk of the dev economy. But notice that this is nearly never what GPL opponents are talking about. (In fact there is surely overlap between GPL'd software and custom software dev.) Instead they talk about consumer applications, games, etc.-- software which does not give its users the same freedoms as GPL'd software. In this class of software, there must then be an implicit premise: either the freedoms that end-users enjoy in both GPL'd software and custom software do not matter, or some other novel argument that downplays both the practical and ethical benefits of those freedoms. And here's the thing-- whatever the implicit argument is, it runs counter to the spirit of both GPL'd software and custom software dev. GPL advocates ought to use this argument to split the opposition between custom software development (regardless of license) on the one hand, and whatever the word is for proprietary software that aims to lock users into a system they can't control on the other. Btw, the fact that I can't think of the word for the second category is a red flag that GPL advocates do a shit job with their propaganda. :) Edit: clarification

pseudalopex 5y ago
Proprietary software means software controlled by another party. Custom software includes all rights usually. Most custom software clients want full ownership. Not a copyleft license. So most custom software developers look at licensing the same as most proprietary software developers. They want other developers to use permissive licenses because it makes their job easier.