5 ms·

... if you want to foster and ensure the existence of proprietary software. Fair enough, I guess - but not something I would personally feel compelled to do. A

by c0l0 4y ago

... if you want to foster and ensure the existence of proprietary software. Fair enough, I guess - but not something I would personally feel compelled to do. Also note that the document never takes into account the needs of the eventual user of the appropriately licensed software, but only ever its (or other) developer(s).

nix23 4y ago
[flagged]
daveguy 4y ago
Why would the eventual user care whether or not something is GPL or BSD? They're both free as in cookies and make no allowance or restriction on simple use of the software. The distinction is 100% about what a future developer can do or not do.
- enriquto 4y ago
  > Why would the eventual user care whether or not something is GPL or BSD? As a user, I definitely prefer to use a copylefted program. This means that I am guaranteed to enjoy the four software freedoms; in particular, I can look at how the program works and I can change its behavior, or hire a programmer to change it. A non-copylefted program, however, may be distributed by some middleman that deprives me of this freedom. Even if the original developer of the program shared it under a free-software licence, it can be re-packaged as a non-free wrapper. This is impossible with copyleft licenses. Thus, even if copyleft "imposes" some mild restrictions to developers, it is certainly very liberating to users! Notice that the only "restriction" imposed to developers is that they cannot re-package a copylefted program so that it becomes un-free.
  - daveguy 4y ago
    >As a user, I definitely prefer to use a copylefted program. Okay. Good for you. As a user who likes to combine software ideas, I don't want my work or inspiration to be tainted by a work that would try to restrict my work in the future. You are free to enjoy what your freedoms and I am free to enjoy mine.
- trelane 4y ago
  I don't develop OpenWRT, but I use it extensively. The GPL is one of the best tools we have for the software side of the right to repair, especially the GPLv3 (anti-tivoization provisions). Just because you don't actively develop something doesn't mean that you won't find the economy and wider options and market forces it provides useful.
  - daveguy 4y ago
    TiVo will never surpass the creativity of others. I whole-heartedly agree with anti-restriction clauses. Like "No lawsuits against users or other creators for "infringing patents" by using this software, if they are not, in another way, infringing. Otherwise, you lose your license."
  - daveguy 4y ago
    Nothing about the GPLv3 license created that except that the authors wanted (or maybe didn't really want to) release under that license. And if they like to release under that license. Good for them! But I don't think they should require other software creators to release under the same license. And that's why I won't use GPL software other than LGPL.
    - trelane 4y ago
      You said > The distinction is 100% about what a future developer can do or not do. I pointed out that this was incorrect. > But I don't think they should require other software creators to release under the same license. So you think end-user-hostile software is fine. I guess we disagree.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

by c0l0 4y ago

nix23 4y ago

[flagged]

daveguy 4y ago

Why would the eventual user care whether or not something is GPL or BSD? They're both free as in cookies and make no allowance or restriction on simple use of the software. The distinction is 100% about what a future developer can do or not do.

enriquto 4y ago
> Why would the eventual user care whether or not something is GPL or BSD? As a user, I definitely prefer to use a copylefted program. This means that I am guaranteed to enjoy the four software freedoms; in particular, I can look at how the program works and I can change its behavior, or hire a programmer to change it. A non-copylefted program, however, may be distributed by some middleman that deprives me of this freedom. Even if the original developer of the program shared it under a free-software licence, it can be re-packaged as a non-free wrapper. This is impossible with copyleft licenses. Thus, even if copyleft "imposes" some mild restrictions to developers, it is certainly very liberating to users! Notice that the only "restriction" imposed to developers is that they cannot re-package a copylefted program so that it becomes un-free.
- daveguy 4y ago
  >As a user, I definitely prefer to use a copylefted program. Okay. Good for you. As a user who likes to combine software ideas, I don't want my work or inspiration to be tainted by a work that would try to restrict my work in the future. You are free to enjoy what your freedoms and I am free to enjoy mine.
trelane 4y ago
I don't develop OpenWRT, but I use it extensively. The GPL is one of the best tools we have for the software side of the right to repair, especially the GPLv3 (anti-tivoization provisions). Just because you don't actively develop something doesn't mean that you won't find the economy and wider options and market forces it provides useful.
- daveguy 4y ago
  TiVo will never surpass the creativity of others. I whole-heartedly agree with anti-restriction clauses. Like "No lawsuits against users or other creators for "infringing patents" by using this software, if they are not, in another way, infringing. Otherwise, you lose your license."
- daveguy 4y ago
  Nothing about the GPLv3 license created that except that the authors wanted (or maybe didn't really want to) release under that license. And if they like to release under that license. Good for them! But I don't think they should require other software creators to release under the same license. And that's why I won't use GPL software other than LGPL.
  - trelane 4y ago
    You said > The distinction is 100% about what a future developer can do or not do. I pointed out that this was incorrect. > But I don't think they should require other software creators to release under the same license. So you think end-user-hostile software is fine. I guess we disagree.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]