6 ms·

I've gotten to prefer referring to FSF licenses as "restrictive licenses," which was the name that open source or even the "public domain software" people would

I've gotten to prefer referring to FSF licenses as "restrictive licenses," which was the name that open source or even the "public domain software" people would throw at them. I'm happy to say that FSF licenses are more like "proprietary" licenses than open source licenses. So when a proprietary coder complains about not being able to use GPL'd code, I just ask them why we can't use all of their proprietary code. They have as much right to steal from the public as the public has to steal from them. Or maybe a little less, due to democracy. The GPLs restrict software authors from being the masters of their users, without requiring them to be the servants of their users. Since the author is choosing the license, it's a voluntary relinquishment of rights that should never have been given by government to merchants. You choose open source if instead you want to give away the those rights (the rights to obscure functionality and lock people out of their own possessions) to whoever wants them. When Amazon picks those up, don't cry about it.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
GPL only restricts one from being a dick. "Unfair!" If someone requires other terms, the existence of GPL code in no way restricts them from writing or buying other code that is compatible with whatever terms they require. Anyone crying about that is only crying that they are not allowed to steal something that is already free. From an authors perspective, do what you want. Don't use GPL if you don't share the single value it enshrines. It doesn't make you righter or more rational or the GPL wrong or anything like that, and the desire to rent out access to the use of a secret is the most common and least interesting thing in the world, as is the desire to try to present that as being any sort of principle about freedom instead of the crass food-gathering thing that it is.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    Take a deep breath and try again.
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      LOL where's the lie? if you have to send lawyers after someone for stealing something which was free, it's not free. it's just a cult of flatulence inhalers that think that permissively licensed code is breaking their precious rules by declining to sue innocent people for keeping their own work. as has been made readily apparent in this thread
      - brenns10 3y ago
        GPL breakers wouldn't be breaking GPL if they kept their own work. They break it when they distribute a compiled work that's only partly theirs, and mainly somebody else's, without sharing the source code for it. You're more than welcome to build on GPL code and keep your own work. Just don't distribute it.
        iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        >only partly theirs >Just don't distribute it. I thought it was free as in speech, but ok. Send your lawyers, commies. But yeah, I'll stick to actually free software like Apache. I don't want to get an extraneous toenail fungus on me.
      - Dah00n 3y ago
        I said nothing about a lie. But you add only anger to the conversation for no reason. I didn't even say I disagreed with you yet you are on the attack right away.
        iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        Take a deep huff of those digestive gases and try again.
msla 3y ago
The GPL is only restrictive to companies that want to use unpaid labor. I'm not surprised to see their astroturf around here, and I'm not surprised that the astroturf probably isn't paid for, either.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  Linux kernel devs are literally unpaid labor working almost exclusively for the benefit of companies and governments with enormous datacenters out in the desert
  - ghaff 3y ago
    The vast majority of kernel devs are paid salaries to do this work by their companies.
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      You know the ones I'm talking about. The true believers.
      - Brian_K_White 3y ago
        I don't understand why you care so much. If the principle embodied in the GPL is so stupid, then what do you care about any software written under it? Obviously you can't possibly value or want any software written by any such stupid and filthy hippies.
        iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        I don't except Oracle and its GPL ilk love to sue people for millions of dollars and stretch the meaning of derivative work more than a transwoman stretches a miniskirt.
        Brian_K_White 3y ago
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
The GPL is the most free license, because it guarantees the propagation of freedom. The MIT license does the opposite. If I want my code to be hidden, mangled, and exploited to make some asshole in a suit rich at the detriment of the rest of society, I already have plenty of opportunities for that: paid work. All the MIT license is good for is devaluing paid software work in the eyes of the ownership class. In contrast, the GPL simply codifies the social contract that should apply to every social interaction: basic respect via repayment in kind. You got something for free! Why not likewise pay it forward by taking an action that also costs you nothing? The GPL just asks that you engage in basic human decency. The MIT license declares you a mark.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  I think MIT declares you either a mark or a saint. I use MIT for trivial things like examples, asnswers to questions where you have to declare something or the answer or example is of no value and then why bother writing it. But nothing substantial. I "selfishly" only want to contribute to the guaranteed for all and eternity pool. So I don't use or recommend MIT. But I do think that at least some examples of MIT are the result of the authors being essentially saints. Giving so selflessly that they even give to the devil, making the world a better place only through the mechanism that the most people end up using the best functioning available code. IE it's better that Microsoft sell the use of the TCP/IP stack, than have users end up having to use something else. It was them being better than I think they have to be, and better than I am, but not actually misguided and harmful. Many uses of MIT do strike me as exactly misguided and long term more harmful than helpful, but not automatically all. I'm just not a saint myself and don't require anyone else to be either, and I think the world would be at least just as fine if there never was any MIT code but only normal copyrighted and full GPL style.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  GPL is expressly designed for assholes who want to control people. MIT license allows people to control code (the horror!).
  - Dah00n 3y ago

Brian_K_White 3y ago

GPL only restricts one from being a dick. "Unfair!" If someone requires other terms, the existence of GPL code in no way restricts them from writing or buying other code that is compatible with whatever terms they require. Anyone crying about that is only crying that they are not allowed to steal something that is already free. From an authors perspective, do what you want. Don't use GPL if you don't share the single value it enshrines. It doesn't make you righter or more rational or the GPL wrong or anything like that, and the desire to rent out access to the use of a secret is the most common and least interesting thing in the world, as is the desire to try to present that as being any sort of principle about freedom instead of the crass food-gathering thing that it is.

iraqmtpizza 3y ago
[flagged]
- Dah00n 3y ago
  Take a deep breath and try again.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    LOL where's the lie? if you have to send lawyers after someone for stealing something which was free, it's not free. it's just a cult of flatulence inhalers that think that permissively licensed code is breaking their precious rules by declining to sue innocent people for keeping their own work. as has been made readily apparent in this thread
    - brenns10 3y ago
      GPL breakers wouldn't be breaking GPL if they kept their own work. They break it when they distribute a compiled work that's only partly theirs, and mainly somebody else's, without sharing the source code for it. You're more than welcome to build on GPL code and keep your own work. Just don't distribute it.
      - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        >only partly theirs >Just don't distribute it. I thought it was free as in speech, but ok. Send your lawyers, commies. But yeah, I'll stick to actually free software like Apache. I don't want to get an extraneous toenail fungus on me.
    - Dah00n 3y ago
      I said nothing about a lie. But you add only anger to the conversation for no reason. I didn't even say I disagreed with you yet you are on the attack right away.
      - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        Take a deep huff of those digestive gases and try again.

msla 3y ago

The GPL is only restrictive to companies that want to use unpaid labor. I'm not surprised to see their astroturf around here, and I'm not surprised that the astroturf probably isn't paid for, either.

iraqmtpizza 3y ago
Linux kernel devs are literally unpaid labor working almost exclusively for the benefit of companies and governments with enormous datacenters out in the desert
- ghaff 3y ago
  The vast majority of kernel devs are paid salaries to do this work by their companies.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    You know the ones I'm talking about. The true believers.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      I don't understand why you care so much. If the principle embodied in the GPL is so stupid, then what do you care about any software written under it? Obviously you can't possibly value or want any software written by any such stupid and filthy hippies.
      - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        I don't except Oracle and its GPL ilk love to sue people for millions of dollars and stretch the meaning of derivative work more than a transwoman stretches a miniskirt.
        Brian_K_White 3y ago

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

The GPL is the most free license, because it guarantees the propagation of freedom. The MIT license does the opposite. If I want my code to be hidden, mangled, and exploited to make some asshole in a suit rich at the detriment of the rest of society, I already have plenty of opportunities for that: paid work. All the MIT license is good for is devaluing paid software work in the eyes of the ownership class. In contrast, the GPL simply codifies the social contract that should apply to every social interaction: basic respect via repayment in kind. You got something for free! Why not likewise pay it forward by taking an action that also costs you nothing? The GPL just asks that you engage in basic human decency. The MIT license declares you a mark.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
I think MIT declares you either a mark or a saint. I use MIT for trivial things like examples, asnswers to questions where you have to declare something or the answer or example is of no value and then why bother writing it. But nothing substantial. I "selfishly" only want to contribute to the guaranteed for all and eternity pool. So I don't use or recommend MIT. But I do think that at least some examples of MIT are the result of the authors being essentially saints. Giving so selflessly that they even give to the devil, making the world a better place only through the mechanism that the most people end up using the best functioning available code. IE it's better that Microsoft sell the use of the TCP/IP stack, than have users end up having to use something else. It was them being better than I think they have to be, and better than I am, but not actually misguided and harmful. Many uses of MIT do strike me as exactly misguided and long term more harmful than helpful, but not automatically all. I'm just not a saint myself and don't require anyone else to be either, and I think the world would be at least just as fine if there never was any MIT code but only normal copyrighted and full GPL style.
iraqmtpizza 3y ago
GPL is expressly designed for assholes who want to control people. MIT license allows people to control code (the horror!).
- Dah00n 3y ago