5 ms·

This is the core of my concern about GPL - you can't make a distinction between open and closed because compliance requires you to give everything away.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago
no. by using GPL code in your software, you are telling the users that. if you use MIT instead, no one cares and you can use the code anyway you like. using GPL code REQUIRES COMPLIANCE, that is the only way to ensure the four freedoms. if you are not okay with that, like famously google is, they simply ban AGPL/GPL software from their organization and everyone is fine with that also.
- andai 5y ago
  MIT/BSD (at least without the advertising/attribution clause) are essentially public domain, identical in spirit to the WTFPL (whose entire body text reads: "just do what the fuck you want to.") GPL actually restricts certain freedoms to preserve others. The "actually free" (public domain) licenses allow you to do things Stallman considers harmful, which he defines as a violation of user freedoms. In other words, his licenses remove the freedom to remove freedoms.
  - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
    >GPL actually restricts certain freedoms to preserve others. The "actually free" (public domain) licenses allow you to do things Stallman considers harmful, which he defines as a violation of user freedoms. In other words, his licenses remove the freedom to remove freedoms. i know what the "freedom" that GPL restricts. it is about using GPL code in proprietary software. thats all. look at it from GPL POV. i am contributing to a GPL software which is free software (beer and speech), a person comes along and uses the freedom i gave in my license and uses that code in a proprietary software. now, the intermediate dev is free to use the code but their end users now suddenly find that they are using my code and yet the intermediate dev put proprietary license, thereby restricting their freedom. i have a small question to ask for all gpl naysayers, why do you care about this intermediate dev's freedom and not about the freedom of the end users? look at it this way. Apple took bsd kernel whatnot and made it into proprietary code. the license gives them the right to do that but what about end users. now they are forced to use proprietary code. Had apple used GPL code, they would have been forced to give source code to their customers and we would not be reverse engineering asahi linux like we are doing it now. it would have been as easy as linux is right now.
    - andai 5y ago
      I don't like legal documents, especially ones that presume to tell me what I can and can't do. Therefore it would be hypocritical of me to license my code in a way that forces the developer to do certain things, or prevents them from doing others. Sure I'd prefer that people release their changes, but am I their dad? Am I their priest? People are free to do things I consider unethical; it is not my place to stop them. If I seriously consider the alternative, then I would be forced to commit to the idea of software-licensing as ethics activism: for example I might add a veganism clause to my license to prevent my software from being used by people who contribute to the horrors of factory farming. To be clear, I'm not at all opposed to the spirit of the GPL! As mentioned above, I very much like it when people behave in the ways the FSF recommends. I'm just opposed to legally mandating such behavior, so I wouldn't personally do that.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
> compliance requires you to give everything away. Only if you distribute a binary. You can freely build GPL code into a proprietary network service. Plugging this loophole is the whole reason why AGPL exists. You can also freely incorporate GPL code into private internal tooling since a corporation is a single legal entity and no distribution happens among employees.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

no. by using GPL code in your software, you are telling the users that. if you use MIT instead, no one cares and you can use the code anyway you like. using GPL code REQUIRES COMPLIANCE, that is the only way to ensure the four freedoms. if you are not okay with that, like famously google is, they simply ban AGPL/GPL software from their organization and everyone is fine with that also.

andai 5y ago
MIT/BSD (at least without the advertising/attribution clause) are essentially public domain, identical in spirit to the WTFPL (whose entire body text reads: "just do what the fuck you want to.") GPL actually restricts certain freedoms to preserve others. The "actually free" (public domain) licenses allow you to do things Stallman considers harmful, which he defines as a violation of user freedoms. In other words, his licenses remove the freedom to remove freedoms.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  >GPL actually restricts certain freedoms to preserve others. The "actually free" (public domain) licenses allow you to do things Stallman considers harmful, which he defines as a violation of user freedoms. In other words, his licenses remove the freedom to remove freedoms. i know what the "freedom" that GPL restricts. it is about using GPL code in proprietary software. thats all. look at it from GPL POV. i am contributing to a GPL software which is free software (beer and speech), a person comes along and uses the freedom i gave in my license and uses that code in a proprietary software. now, the intermediate dev is free to use the code but their end users now suddenly find that they are using my code and yet the intermediate dev put proprietary license, thereby restricting their freedom. i have a small question to ask for all gpl naysayers, why do you care about this intermediate dev's freedom and not about the freedom of the end users? look at it this way. Apple took bsd kernel whatnot and made it into proprietary code. the license gives them the right to do that but what about end users. now they are forced to use proprietary code. Had apple used GPL code, they would have been forced to give source code to their customers and we would not be reverse engineering asahi linux like we are doing it now. it would have been as easy as linux is right now.
  - andai 5y ago
    I don't like legal documents, especially ones that presume to tell me what I can and can't do. Therefore it would be hypocritical of me to license my code in a way that forces the developer to do certain things, or prevents them from doing others. Sure I'd prefer that people release their changes, but am I their dad? Am I their priest? People are free to do things I consider unethical; it is not my place to stop them. If I seriously consider the alternative, then I would be forced to commit to the idea of software-licensing as ethics activism: for example I might add a veganism clause to my license to prevent my software from being used by people who contribute to the horrors of factory farming. To be clear, I'm not at all opposed to the spirit of the GPL! As mentioned above, I very much like it when people behave in the ways the FSF recommends. I'm just opposed to legally mandating such behavior, so I wouldn't personally do that.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

> compliance requires you to give everything away. Only if you distribute a binary. You can freely build GPL code into a proprietary network service. Plugging this loophole is the whole reason why AGPL exists. You can also freely incorporate GPL code into private internal tooling since a corporation is a single legal entity and no distribution happens among employees.