4 ms·

Nothing. That's why the GPL can be easily seem as being all about ego and anti-profits rather than freedom. Even if the company in your scenario violates the GP

Nothing. That's why the GPL can be easily seem as being all about ego and anti-profits rather than freedom. Even if the company in your scenario violates the GPL it doesn't do anything to hurt software freedom. The GPL seems to be a tool to force FOSS ideals down people's throats rather than the nice sounding ideals that are the official party line. A GPL violation doesn't stop free software advocates from paying it forward and sharing and the original source is still available to anyone who wants it. But few people really want freedom. The goal of the GPL can easily be mistaken to be to turn all software into GPL software. In fact the existence of the GPL itself can also be mistaken as a clever ploy to infect non-free software and make it free.

icebraining 15y ago
Sorry, but how don't see how the GPL forces anything nor does it "infect" anything. That kind of loaded terminology is just BS. The GPL offers you a deal that you can accept or refuse, just like any other license. The terms are definitively more onerous than permissive OSS licenses, but that's it.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  To be clear, I really wanted to point out that it can easily be perceived the way I described. I wasn't really trying to say that it's actually so. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the GPL myself so it probably came out that way but the bigger point wasn't about my personal preferences but just how the GPL lends itself easily to that kind of thinking.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >nor does it "infect" anything. Yes it does, which is part of the damn point. If you incorporate GPL'ed code into your app, your app is now subject to the same terms by default. I understand the visceral reaction to the word, but it's generally accepted that the GPL has a viral nature.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    An infection implies invasion. Until GPL'ed code starts copying itself to your projects, it's not an infection. As RMS himself said: The GPL's domain does not spread by proximity or contact, only by deliberate inclusion of GPL-covered code in your program. It spreads like a spider plant, not like a virus. it's generally accepted that the GPL has a viral nature It's generally accepted after the smear campaign by GPL haters, just like the "General Public Virus" expression and the "cancer" remarks by Ballmer. It's still a pejorative and, in my opinion, defamatory term.
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      >An infection implies invasion A willful infection is still an infection. Whereby an invsasion is always unwanted. You can't willfully invade your own code, but you can willfully infect it - whether that be with other code, or licenses. But now we're getting into semantics..

icebraining 15y ago

Sorry, but how don't see how the GPL forces anything nor does it "infect" anything. That kind of loaded terminology is just BS. The GPL offers you a deal that you can accept or refuse, just like any other license. The terms are definitively more onerous than permissive OSS licenses, but that's it.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
To be clear, I really wanted to point out that it can easily be perceived the way I described. I wasn't really trying to say that it's actually so. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the GPL myself so it probably came out that way but the bigger point wasn't about my personal preferences but just how the GPL lends itself easily to that kind of thinking.
Karunamon 15y ago
>nor does it "infect" anything. Yes it does, which is part of the damn point. If you incorporate GPL'ed code into your app, your app is now subject to the same terms by default. I understand the visceral reaction to the word, but it's generally accepted that the GPL has a viral nature.
- icebraining 15y ago
  An infection implies invasion. Until GPL'ed code starts copying itself to your projects, it's not an infection. As RMS himself said: The GPL's domain does not spread by proximity or contact, only by deliberate inclusion of GPL-covered code in your program. It spreads like a spider plant, not like a virus. it's generally accepted that the GPL has a viral nature It's generally accepted after the smear campaign by GPL haters, just like the "General Public Virus" expression and the "cancer" remarks by Ballmer. It's still a pejorative and, in my opinion, defamatory term.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    >An infection implies invasion A willful infection is still an infection. Whereby an invsasion is always unwanted. You can't willfully invade your own code, but you can willfully infect it - whether that be with other code, or licenses. But now we're getting into semantics..