6 ms·

>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 Fre

>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?

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?