4 ms·

> Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple) it's the exact opposite. Apart from the wording,

> Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple) it's the exact opposite. Apart from the wording, which sounds dismissing for no reason, Stallman has no disciples, people who describe them like that usually have some agenda that does not respect other people's freedoms, since we know discipline is hard, GPL forces people (corporations mostly) to stay away if the just want to free-ride on voluntary work. Want to use GPL code? No problem! it's yours, no strings attached, there are only 2 things you can't do: put it under a different license, redistribute it without incorporating your changes as GPL. Which is completely fine morally and ethically, if you come to my house and are my guest for free and I only ask you to not rent the property for money and if you do to share the money with me, would you think I'm appealing to your sense of morality or that I am being fair? Compare it to, let's say, any other proprietary license where, for example, Oracle doesn't allow you to run the software you have bough on different hardware configurations than the one you bought the license for and try to establish which one gives you more freedom. There's also, OTOH, a popular trope that says "I license it <whatever free license not GPL> because I have no problem with corporations using it and I can brag about being the author" Well, that's a pipe dream, the most delusional there is. Take this as an example among so many that it's really heart shattering: https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1469441487175880711 https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1469441487175880711 An hypothetical discussion would go like this - coder: I wrote this code, hope you like it, it's free to use - megacorp: you mean I have to pay zero $? - coder: I mean it's free as in freedom! - megacorp: can you speak $ please? is it zero or not? - coder: well, yes, but that's not the p... - megacorp: then ZERO it is and I will also blame you for any bug or if you do not add the features I need - coder: but that's not fair... - megacorp: does the license prohibit it? - coder: well... no - megacorp: then unfair it is! how THIS (which is far from rare or no heard of outcome) incentivize people to keep on coding for free is the real mystery to me! not that the GPL asks people to follow standard human decency and respect for other people hard work. That's completely understandable to me!

roarcher 4y ago
You're confused. I'm not talking about using your GPL code in my project. I'm talking about why I choose not to license my own project as GPL. Edit: Nice ninja edit. No, I don't use non-copyleft licenses for bragging rights. What is it with GPL ideologues in this thread and ascribing ulterior motives to anyone who disagrees with them? Here's why I don't use copyleft: because I don't give a shit who uses my code or for what. It's really that simple. I guess I don't have enough petty envy in me to care if, god forbid, somebody else makes a buck off my code. And so what if some corporation blames me for bugs? I can tell them to fix it themselves or pound sand. That's the beauty of requiring nothing from them in return. They have no leg to stand on when making demands of me.
- B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago
  did you or did you not write these sentences? > Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple) > what's their incentive to use it? It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving. I think you meant more than simply "why I choose not to license my own project as GPL" you're actually bashing on GPL because you either - are ignorant of what GPL license says - have an agenda and/or are paid to spread FUD - all of the above If I want to be charitable I would say that the last hypothesis is that you are not aware of what you write. EDIT: you also rote > Nobody is "afraid" of copyleft, that's a rhetorical device you're using to discredit those who disagree with you Which is not true, a lot of businesses are afraid of copyleft, in fact at work not many people can publish their code under a copyleft license, because the mainstream mindset is that code is an asset and keeping it secret gives companies an advantage. Which clearly is not the case, because most of the code is simply a rewrite - usually bad - of something that already exists in the copyleft World. Everyone working in the field knows that. So it's a decision based on fear not on risk assessment. The company I work for is specialized in risk assessment and even they cannot escape the myth that code must be kept secret or the competition would steal it. I wonder what competitor would steal that pile of garbage that only works under very specific requirements, which are mostly there because 40 years of legacy and incompetence. You seem to have an idea of copyleft (GPL in particular) that is far from what it is and it only exists in your mind.
  - roarcher 4y ago
    > I think you meant more than simply "why I choose not to license my own project as GPL" Think what you want. Nobody else was confused by my meaning. > have and agenda and are paid to spread FUD LMAO you guys are fucking lunatics. Have a nice night.
    - B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago
      > Think what you want. Nobody else was confused by my meaning. you are very confused and don't even understand what you wrote my dear friend. GPL is not based on "asking those who are already giving to give more" but on collaboration. Which I understand is not a thing for you, so you better stay away from it, but that's not a GPL's fault, that's exactly the purpose: keeping away the free riders like you! besides "nobody else" is a very poor defense, only kids use that. It doesn't make your statements less false. > LMAO you guys are fucking lunatics. Have a nice night. Who are you talking to now? I am one. Reminder: the World is vast, USA is just a small percentage of it, not even one of the most interesting by any metric, it's lunch time here. Sleep on it, if tomorrow you still see the invisible "guys" you mentioned, call a doctor. You sure you're ok?

roarcher 4y ago

You're confused. I'm not talking about using your GPL code in my project. I'm talking about why I choose not to license my own project as GPL. Edit: Nice ninja edit. No, I don't use non-copyleft licenses for bragging rights. What is it with GPL ideologues in this thread and ascribing ulterior motives to anyone who disagrees with them? Here's why I don't use copyleft: because I don't give a shit who uses my code or for what. It's really that simple. I guess I don't have enough petty envy in me to care if, god forbid, somebody else makes a buck off my code. And so what if some corporation blames me for bugs? I can tell them to fix it themselves or pound sand. That's the beauty of requiring nothing from them in return. They have no leg to stand on when making demands of me.

B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago
did you or did you not write these sentences? > Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple) > what's their incentive to use it? It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving. I think you meant more than simply "why I choose not to license my own project as GPL" you're actually bashing on GPL because you either - are ignorant of what GPL license says - have an agenda and/or are paid to spread FUD - all of the above If I want to be charitable I would say that the last hypothesis is that you are not aware of what you write. EDIT: you also rote > Nobody is "afraid" of copyleft, that's a rhetorical device you're using to discredit those who disagree with you Which is not true, a lot of businesses are afraid of copyleft, in fact at work not many people can publish their code under a copyleft license, because the mainstream mindset is that code is an asset and keeping it secret gives companies an advantage. Which clearly is not the case, because most of the code is simply a rewrite - usually bad - of something that already exists in the copyleft World. Everyone working in the field knows that. So it's a decision based on fear not on risk assessment. The company I work for is specialized in risk assessment and even they cannot escape the myth that code must be kept secret or the competition would steal it. I wonder what competitor would steal that pile of garbage that only works under very specific requirements, which are mostly there because 40 years of legacy and incompetence. You seem to have an idea of copyleft (GPL in particular) that is far from what it is and it only exists in your mind.
- roarcher 4y ago
  > I think you meant more than simply "why I choose not to license my own project as GPL" Think what you want. Nobody else was confused by my meaning. > have and agenda and are paid to spread FUD LMAO you guys are fucking lunatics. Have a nice night.
  - B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago
    > Think what you want. Nobody else was confused by my meaning. you are very confused and don't even understand what you wrote my dear friend. GPL is not based on "asking those who are already giving to give more" but on collaboration. Which I understand is not a thing for you, so you better stay away from it, but that's not a GPL's fault, that's exactly the purpose: keeping away the free riders like you! besides "nobody else" is a very poor defense, only kids use that. It doesn't make your statements less false. > LMAO you guys are fucking lunatics. Have a nice night. Who are you talking to now? I am one. Reminder: the World is vast, USA is just a small percentage of it, not even one of the most interesting by any metric, it's lunch time here. Sleep on it, if tomorrow you still see the invisible "guys" you mentioned, call a doctor. You sure you're ok?