3 ms·

"I dislike the GPL, and the stigmatization of proprietary software for any reason, and the notion that it's inherently evil and unethical." Wow that is a wildl

"I dislike the GPL, and the stigmatization of proprietary software for any reason, and the notion that it's inherently evil and unethical." Wow that is a wildly extreme characterization of GPL and people who support it. GPL uses laws to restrict how one's work product is distributed and used, just like proprietary software does. WTF?

yakubin 4y ago
After a couple seconds on GNU's homepage[1]: > With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power. [2]: > To release a nonfree program is always ethically tainted I've read enough of passages like these from GNU in the past to say that your quote is not a mischaracterisation. [1]: <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor...> [2]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>
- LastTrain 4y ago
  Yes. Even though RMS is the founder of the movement, I think it is fair to say most people who contribute to GPL code have a more pragmatic view. Linus Tovalds springs to mind and is the 'owner' of the particular OS the article's author was writing about. I would argue the author has a similarly silly attitude which is the GPL is so bad he won't even taint his machine with it.
  - nix23 4y ago
    >Linus Tovalds springs to mind and is the 'owner' of the particular OS the article's author was writing about. Linux is just a Kernel, and Linus is the copyright-owner (of Linux (the brand)), not the 'owner' of code mostly others made. >I would argue the author has a similarly silly attitude which is the GPL is so bad he won't even taint his machine with it. Please read the article again, it's not against GPL but against those extreme RMS-mind's in the FSF community.
    - phendrenad2 4y ago
      I think it's valid to not want to use software if you think that using it will contribute to a philosophy that you don't like. And it is true that many people choose GPL because they didn't bother to do any research and think it's just a safe default, but enough people do choose it because they believe that proprietary software is evil or morally wrong in some way. Personally I'd like to see BSD become more of a serious contender for the user-friendly FOSS desktop, able to use proprietary blobs of code without legal factors to consider.

yakubin 4y ago

After a couple seconds on GNU's homepage[1]: > With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power. [2]: > To release a nonfree program is always ethically tainted I've read enough of passages like these from GNU in the past to say that your quote is not a mischaracterisation. [1]: <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor...> [2]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>

LastTrain 4y ago
Yes. Even though RMS is the founder of the movement, I think it is fair to say most people who contribute to GPL code have a more pragmatic view. Linus Tovalds springs to mind and is the 'owner' of the particular OS the article's author was writing about. I would argue the author has a similarly silly attitude which is the GPL is so bad he won't even taint his machine with it.
- nix23 4y ago
  >Linus Tovalds springs to mind and is the 'owner' of the particular OS the article's author was writing about. Linux is just a Kernel, and Linus is the copyright-owner (of Linux (the brand)), not the 'owner' of code mostly others made. >I would argue the author has a similarly silly attitude which is the GPL is so bad he won't even taint his machine with it. Please read the article again, it's not against GPL but against those extreme RMS-mind's in the FSF community.
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    I think it's valid to not want to use software if you think that using it will contribute to a philosophy that you don't like. And it is true that many people choose GPL because they didn't bother to do any research and think it's just a safe default, but enough people do choose it because they believe that proprietary software is evil or morally wrong in some way. Personally I'd like to see BSD become more of a serious contender for the user-friendly FOSS desktop, able to use proprietary blobs of code without legal factors to consider.