3 ms·

The original point of the GPL was to ensure that end-users retained their rights to the source code. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-fre

The original point of the GPL was to ensure that end-users retained their rights to the source code. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms.

vlovich123 5y ago
There’s the philosophical intent of the FSF and then there’s what individual project authors intended by adopting GPL. I think OP correctly explains the perspective of some/many/or even most authors. Arguably, given the decline of GPL as the de facto license for OSS might indicate this viewpoint is at least an accurate perspective today and may have been the underlying truth all along. Certainly growing up I think I cared more about the concept of contributing improvements back than necessarily being able to have source to all derivative products and didn’t trust corporations to give back (I still don’t, but the situation doesn’t seem quite so serious for most projects).
kazinator 5y ago
That's just one point; but note that the LGPL also ensures that users retain those rights. Yet here is a difference between the GPL and LGPL. A GPLed piece cannot be mixed together pieces that have incompatible licenses. This is true even if the pieces are mixed together in a dynamic way that respects their boundaries, so that users can rebuild the GPL-ed piece from sources, make modifications, and slide the modified piece back into the combination. This is part of the point of the GPL, and specifically that point which is relaxed by the Lesser GPL, which is called "lesser" for some ideological reason.
NightMKoder 5y ago
This is a bit reductionist but a fun story for those that haven’t heard it. The GPL was created so rms could modify his printer driver: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt .
- gentleman11 5y ago
  Inspired by that situation, at least

vlovich123 5y ago

There’s the philosophical intent of the FSF and then there’s what individual project authors intended by adopting GPL. I think OP correctly explains the perspective of some/many/or even most authors. Arguably, given the decline of GPL as the de facto license for OSS might indicate this viewpoint is at least an accurate perspective today and may have been the underlying truth all along. Certainly growing up I think I cared more about the concept of contributing improvements back than necessarily being able to have source to all derivative products and didn’t trust corporations to give back (I still don’t, but the situation doesn’t seem quite so serious for most projects).

kazinator 5y ago

That's just one point; but note that the LGPL also ensures that users retain those rights. Yet here is a difference between the GPL and LGPL. A GPLed piece cannot be mixed together pieces that have incompatible licenses. This is true even if the pieces are mixed together in a dynamic way that respects their boundaries, so that users can rebuild the GPL-ed piece from sources, make modifications, and slide the modified piece back into the combination. This is part of the point of the GPL, and specifically that point which is relaxed by the Lesser GPL, which is called "lesser" for some ideological reason.

NightMKoder 5y ago

This is a bit reductionist but a fun story for those that haven’t heard it. The GPL was created so rms could modify his printer driver: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt .

gentleman11 5y ago
Inspired by that situation, at least