6 ms·

Don't take this the wrong way but I personally feel that the GPL is not a free software license, I feel it's a community software license. BSD is a free softwar

Don't take this the wrong way but I personally feel that the GPL is not a free software license, I feel it's a community software license. BSD is a free software license, BSD code is truly yours, you want to create a proprietary fork you can do it, you want to create a GPLed fork you can do it, you want to expand the BSD code base you can do it. One thing I really love about BSD licensed code is that I feel like I own it, best of all this doesn't stop anyone else from feeling the same.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
slowpoke 15y ago
>you want to create a proprietary fork you can do it Why should you be allowed to take away the Freedoms of others? The one thing the GPL restricts is your Freedom to restrict the Freedom of others. That's the foundation of copyleft: your rights stop where mine begin, and that includes being granted the four Freedoms of software as defined by the FSF. In an ideal world, we would not need the GPL. Everyone would have realized already that it is in no one's prolonged interest to make proprietary software, and it would be frowned upon to do so. We would have implicit CC-BY (or -Zero) for everything and be done with it. No more copyright and licensing crap.
- ugh 15y ago
  But can you not at least understand that many people don't understand why those four Freedoms have to be assumed as given? The disagreement is not about how to best make sure the four Freedoms are respected, it's not about implementation. It's about whether the Freedoms are Freedoms at all. That tends to get lost when all everyone always talks about is licenses (i.e. implementation details).
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    >But can you not at least understand that many people don't understand why those four Freedoms have to be assumed as given? No, I can't. I fundamentally don't understand why you would keep source code secret, why you would deny me the right to change it or to redistribute copies. It's utterly incomprehensible to me. On the contrary, I believe the burden of proof as to why we should deny people these Freedoms lies on the side of the advocates or proprietary software, and thus far I haven't seen any compelling argument.
    - ugh 15y ago
      You have to change perspective: Why don’t have I a right to keep my source code secret? When I open an ice cream parlor you don’t have a right to know my recipe†. Why does that change with software? Your argumentative work has to start there. You can’t just steamroll critics by saying “But the Freedoms are and should be Freedoms”. — † That right is of course limited: My right to keep the recipe secret is not absolute. I have to adhere to certain health and safety regulations, being able to keep the recipe secret does not override those regulations.
      - prodigal_erik 15y ago
        We can't really interact with ice cream on a higher level than would an animal, which is fine, that's all it's for. But software is a tool, and we learn from and improve our tools; that's what makes us human rather than mere consumers.
        ugh 15y ago
        So substitute ice cream with hammers, axes, screwdrivers, pens, whatever. I don't see the point.
- ceol 15y ago
  > Why should you be allowed to take away the Freedoms of others? No one's freedom is being taken away when you create a proprietary fork. They are not forced to use your software, and the original is still intact. You do not automatically have a right to someone else's creation. I don't mind paying for software, and I don't mind if they don't let me see their code the same way I don't mind when my local restaurant doesn't let me inspect their kitchen just because I want to.
  - diminish 15y ago
    ..and let me guess, you don't mind the company doing the proprietary fork, sue/threaten the open source forking guys, use software patents as a weapon/threat against open source developers. and you don't mind getting someone else's work, and giving nothing back. In short your freedom is an egoistic tactic where you take, use and even abuse but dont care. There are people like RMS who think otherwise; they want a world where everyone shares to everyone so that everyone benefits from all derivatives.
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      Where do people get the idea that if you GPL something it suddenly becomes immune from patent lawsuits?
    - ceol 15y ago
      That's quite the extrapolation. When did I ever say I don't mind those things? I mind them very much. I also mind being forced to do something. I can make a proprietary fork and still give back; when are those two things mutually exclusive? In your quest for "freedom", you're endorsing a license that forces people to do something. Isn't that the very antithesis of freedom?
      - diminish 15y ago
        > "that forces people to do something." that "something" is crucial to the argument; GPL forces people to open their sources to ensure the freedom to use/distribute is passed further down the chain and to the future. Think of a BSD-licensed device driver; if a company forks it and makes it proprietary, develops a different but new device and sells the device with the new driver; Neither the users nor I; the original developer will be able to benefit from the derivative work and will end up with an unusable new printer in case the company ends support or does not solve a specific problem. I, as the developer and many users will end up in need to re-invent the wheel and improve the old copyleft driver. So I the original developer, in case I give away my code with BSD license, end up allowing a permission to someone who does not give the same to everyone (and to me). That seems like her freedom to you, but it is the freedom for one to end the freedom for many and to the original developer, in the long term, especially considering we all live in the same ecosystem finally. If BSD was ethically/not forceably used by every fork-er, that would be ultimately the same idea with copyleft. Everytime I am giving away some code, I face this dilemma (I have MIT/BSD contributions too). I don't want to strengthen abusers, and non-contributors.
- reuser 15y ago
  How do you take away anybody's freedoms without coercion?
baddox 15y ago
It comes down to how to define "freedom" for free software. RMS's is a very pragmatic (and in my opinion counterintuitive) definition: it just means that no one can conceal the source code. It's counterintuitive to me, because I would consider the maximum freedom being akin to public domain software: anyone would be able to do literally whatever they want with the software, including redistributing it without distributing the source code.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  But as soon as you redistribute it without the source, the people who get that copy don't have the same rights. This is like the old saying: "your right to swing a fist ends at my jaw"; rights should not give you the power to take away others' rights.
  - baddox 15y ago
    I suppose it depends on whether you think there is an inherent right to access the source code of every software you use. The whole positive vs. negative rights issue comes into play big time.
corford 15y ago
They're both free, just with different goals. The GPL gives freedom to the user of the software, the BSD license gives freedom to the developer of the software.
- diminish 15y ago
  like the ultimate freedom Apple enjoys, sucking BSD licensed code freely, giving little back (except when enforced in case of khtml/webkit) and using software patents against others using open source software.
  - eropple 15y ago
    That's a very interesting reinterpretation you have there which happens to tragically overlap little with truth. Seriously, claiming that they "give little back (except when enforced)" is just plain untrue. You can go download PureDarwin right now if you want to see what is probably the bulk of their "BSD licensed code". Or go look at Apple's open-source page[1] for a list of highly not-[L]GPL projects for which Apple's modifications are available. Like their sizable contributions to LLVM, which is NCSA-licensed. Or their whole-cloth release of Darwin under the APSL (a license that even the FSF agrees fits their definition of 'free'). Or their release of Bonjour (wholly in-house development, if I'm not mistaken) under the Apache license. [1] - http://www.apple.com/opensource/ http://www.apple.com/opensource/
Shamanmuni 15y ago
The same argument could be said about slavery. You are told you have freedom, but you don't have the freedom to enslave other people. A society which admits slavery is more free in the sense you say. But, really, would you feel OK with it? I believe that society's well being is more important than absolute personal freedom. The GPL reflects that, so I support it, and we really shouldn't care about petty arguments about which one is "more free".
tikhonj 15y ago
For everybody to have maximal rights, you have to prohibit taking away others' rights. The GPL just codifies this: we give you the right to use this however you like as long as you don't take that right away from others. You can draw a parallel to physical goods: everybody has the right to do whatever they want with whatever they've bought. However, this does not translate to being able to sell that thing to somebody else while restricting what that person can do with it. You do not have the right to restrict what people do with things you used to own.
- bo1024 15y ago
  I think there are two possible assumptions (or axioms) here. Suppose there's a work X licensed under the GPL. You've assumed that if I create a derivative work Y, then everyone else has an automatic right to Y. If I were to restrict Y, I'd be taking away this right, and so the GPL stops me from restricting it. In fact, it severely limits what I can do with my code, but enforces everyone else's freedom to use my code. Let us assume the opposite: that a work does not belong to the public domain until its creator chooses to share it. Then any work X that has already been shared is fully protected (by any free software license). If I create a derivative work Y and keep it secret, I in no way limit people's use of X, so I have not violated any of their rights. Similarly, if I make a restrictive license on Y, I still haven't violated their rights. They never yet had a right to Y, only to X. In this case, the GPL is violating my rights to do as I choose with my personal work, Y. So we have two opposing assumptions and two different conclusions: If you think a work you create immediately "belongs" to the public, then the GPL protects people's rights; if you think it "belongs" to its creator until shared, then the GPL violates people's rights. I myself am in the second camp, so I think that the GPL does not technically qualify as a fully free software license. Perhaps the distinction could be phrased this way: I believe that a potential author of a piece of code should be able to do whatever they want with it, while the GPL is predicated upon the belief that all potential -users- of a piece of code should be able to do whatever they want with it. But I don't think you can have both. You either have to allow restriction of the users' options (if the author so chooses), or you have to restrict the author's options.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

slowpoke 15y ago

>you want to create a proprietary fork you can do it Why should you be allowed to take away the Freedoms of others? The one thing the GPL restricts is your Freedom to restrict the Freedom of others. That's the foundation of copyleft: your rights stop where mine begin, and that includes being granted the four Freedoms of software as defined by the FSF. In an ideal world, we would not need the GPL. Everyone would have realized already that it is in no one's prolonged interest to make proprietary software, and it would be frowned upon to do so. We would have implicit CC-BY (or -Zero) for everything and be done with it. No more copyright and licensing crap.

ugh 15y ago
But can you not at least understand that many people don't understand why those four Freedoms have to be assumed as given? The disagreement is not about how to best make sure the four Freedoms are respected, it's not about implementation. It's about whether the Freedoms are Freedoms at all. That tends to get lost when all everyone always talks about is licenses (i.e. implementation details).
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >But can you not at least understand that many people don't understand why those four Freedoms have to be assumed as given? No, I can't. I fundamentally don't understand why you would keep source code secret, why you would deny me the right to change it or to redistribute copies. It's utterly incomprehensible to me. On the contrary, I believe the burden of proof as to why we should deny people these Freedoms lies on the side of the advocates or proprietary software, and thus far I haven't seen any compelling argument.
  - ugh 15y ago
    You have to change perspective: Why don’t have I a right to keep my source code secret? When I open an ice cream parlor you don’t have a right to know my recipe†. Why does that change with software? Your argumentative work has to start there. You can’t just steamroll critics by saying “But the Freedoms are and should be Freedoms”. — † That right is of course limited: My right to keep the recipe secret is not absolute. I have to adhere to certain health and safety regulations, being able to keep the recipe secret does not override those regulations.
    - prodigal_erik 15y ago
      We can't really interact with ice cream on a higher level than would an animal, which is fine, that's all it's for. But software is a tool, and we learn from and improve our tools; that's what makes us human rather than mere consumers.
      - ugh 15y ago
        So substitute ice cream with hammers, axes, screwdrivers, pens, whatever. I don't see the point.
ceol 15y ago
> Why should you be allowed to take away the Freedoms of others? No one's freedom is being taken away when you create a proprietary fork. They are not forced to use your software, and the original is still intact. You do not automatically have a right to someone else's creation. I don't mind paying for software, and I don't mind if they don't let me see their code the same way I don't mind when my local restaurant doesn't let me inspect their kitchen just because I want to.
- diminish 15y ago
  ..and let me guess, you don't mind the company doing the proprietary fork, sue/threaten the open source forking guys, use software patents as a weapon/threat against open source developers. and you don't mind getting someone else's work, and giving nothing back. In short your freedom is an egoistic tactic where you take, use and even abuse but dont care. There are people like RMS who think otherwise; they want a world where everyone shares to everyone so that everyone benefits from all derivatives.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    Where do people get the idea that if you GPL something it suddenly becomes immune from patent lawsuits?
  - ceol 15y ago
    That's quite the extrapolation. When did I ever say I don't mind those things? I mind them very much. I also mind being forced to do something. I can make a proprietary fork and still give back; when are those two things mutually exclusive? In your quest for "freedom", you're endorsing a license that forces people to do something. Isn't that the very antithesis of freedom?
    - diminish 15y ago
      > "that forces people to do something." that "something" is crucial to the argument; GPL forces people to open their sources to ensure the freedom to use/distribute is passed further down the chain and to the future. Think of a BSD-licensed device driver; if a company forks it and makes it proprietary, develops a different but new device and sells the device with the new driver; Neither the users nor I; the original developer will be able to benefit from the derivative work and will end up with an unusable new printer in case the company ends support or does not solve a specific problem. I, as the developer and many users will end up in need to re-invent the wheel and improve the old copyleft driver. So I the original developer, in case I give away my code with BSD license, end up allowing a permission to someone who does not give the same to everyone (and to me). That seems like her freedom to you, but it is the freedom for one to end the freedom for many and to the original developer, in the long term, especially considering we all live in the same ecosystem finally. If BSD was ethically/not forceably used by every fork-er, that would be ultimately the same idea with copyleft. Everytime I am giving away some code, I face this dilemma (I have MIT/BSD contributions too). I don't want to strengthen abusers, and non-contributors.
reuser 15y ago
How do you take away anybody's freedoms without coercion?

baddox 15y ago

It comes down to how to define "freedom" for free software. RMS's is a very pragmatic (and in my opinion counterintuitive) definition: it just means that no one can conceal the source code. It's counterintuitive to me, because I would consider the maximum freedom being akin to public domain software: anyone would be able to do literally whatever they want with the software, including redistributing it without distributing the source code.

tikhonj 15y ago
But as soon as you redistribute it without the source, the people who get that copy don't have the same rights. This is like the old saying: "your right to swing a fist ends at my jaw"; rights should not give you the power to take away others' rights.
- baddox 15y ago
  I suppose it depends on whether you think there is an inherent right to access the source code of every software you use. The whole positive vs. negative rights issue comes into play big time.

corford 15y ago

They're both free, just with different goals. The GPL gives freedom to the user of the software, the BSD license gives freedom to the developer of the software.

diminish 15y ago
like the ultimate freedom Apple enjoys, sucking BSD licensed code freely, giving little back (except when enforced in case of khtml/webkit) and using software patents against others using open source software.
- eropple 15y ago
  That's a very interesting reinterpretation you have there which happens to tragically overlap little with truth. Seriously, claiming that they "give little back (except when enforced)" is just plain untrue. You can go download PureDarwin right now if you want to see what is probably the bulk of their "BSD licensed code". Or go look at Apple's open-source page[1] for a list of highly not-[L]GPL projects for which Apple's modifications are available. Like their sizable contributions to LLVM, which is NCSA-licensed. Or their whole-cloth release of Darwin under the APSL (a license that even the FSF agrees fits their definition of 'free'). Or their release of Bonjour (wholly in-house development, if I'm not mistaken) under the Apache license. [1] - http://www.apple.com/opensource/ http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Shamanmuni 15y ago

The same argument could be said about slavery. You are told you have freedom, but you don't have the freedom to enslave other people. A society which admits slavery is more free in the sense you say. But, really, would you feel OK with it? I believe that society's well being is more important than absolute personal freedom. The GPL reflects that, so I support it, and we really shouldn't care about petty arguments about which one is "more free".

tikhonj 15y ago

For everybody to have maximal rights, you have to prohibit taking away others' rights. The GPL just codifies this: we give you the right to use this however you like as long as you don't take that right away from others. You can draw a parallel to physical goods: everybody has the right to do whatever they want with whatever they've bought. However, this does not translate to being able to sell that thing to somebody else while restricting what that person can do with it. You do not have the right to restrict what people do with things you used to own.

bo1024 15y ago
I think there are two possible assumptions (or axioms) here. Suppose there's a work X licensed under the GPL. You've assumed that if I create a derivative work Y, then everyone else has an automatic right to Y. If I were to restrict Y, I'd be taking away this right, and so the GPL stops me from restricting it. In fact, it severely limits what I can do with my code, but enforces everyone else's freedom to use my code. Let us assume the opposite: that a work does not belong to the public domain until its creator chooses to share it. Then any work X that has already been shared is fully protected (by any free software license). If I create a derivative work Y and keep it secret, I in no way limit people's use of X, so I have not violated any of their rights. Similarly, if I make a restrictive license on Y, I still haven't violated their rights. They never yet had a right to Y, only to X. In this case, the GPL is violating my rights to do as I choose with my personal work, Y. So we have two opposing assumptions and two different conclusions: If you think a work you create immediately "belongs" to the public, then the GPL protects people's rights; if you think it "belongs" to its creator until shared, then the GPL violates people's rights. I myself am in the second camp, so I think that the GPL does not technically qualify as a fully free software license. Perhaps the distinction could be phrased this way: I believe that a potential author of a piece of code should be able to do whatever they want with it, while the GPL is predicated upon the belief that all potential -users- of a piece of code should be able to do whatever they want with it. But I don't think you can have both. You either have to allow restriction of the users' options (if the author so chooses), or you have to restrict the author's options.