5 ms·

When are we going to have these same feelings towards open source licenses? Many people in this community have no problems using the current laws to enforce th

When are we going to have these same feelings towards open source licenses? Many people in this community have no problems using the current laws to enforce the GNU, which takes away just as many civil liberties.

ewillbefull 14y ago
I actually dislike GPL as well. There's a reason why BSD-style licenses have done more for open source in the last decade than GPL. What gives you the impression GPL is well-liked by pirates?
tikhonj 14y ago
This argument always comes up and it never makes any sense. The GNU is exactly the opposite of normal copyright. The fact that it is based on copyright law is just an implementation detail because the FSF does not have enough clout to pass actual laws. It's a clever hack of the legal system, not an ideological reaffirmation of copyright. The idea behind normal copyright--what some people here do not like--is to limit others' access to information. The whole point is that you cannot copy something without the right-owner's permission. The GPL is the opposite. The core idea there is that you are not only allowed to make a copy of something, but you are also allowed to access the source code. In practical terms, this is just as important as being able to copy a program because the only meaningful way to make modifications is with access to the source code. Moreover, the license ensures that anybody using the licensed program keeps it free in the same way. Essentially, where normal copyright keeps you from using the information, the GPL keeps you from using copyright law to keep others from using the information. In a very practical sense, something under the GPL is more free than something in the public domain--I could ship you something containing public domain code and not give you the source code or even let you modify it. I could not do that with the GPL. Another way to look at it is that normal copyright gives rights to the "rights-holder" over the consumer. The GPL gives rights to the consumer (like access to source code) rather than to the rights-holder. The "restrictions" it places are the sort of restrictions any system based around rights has to have--you have the right to do almost anything as long as you do not infringe others' rights. In this context it means you can do anything you want (including selling the software) as long as you do not stop others from modifying and redistributing it. In short: the GPL is the opposite of copyright and it gives the consumer more freedom. The only thing it stops you from doing is taking away others' freedom. The only reason it uses copyright is because copyright effectively allows you to write your own laws (but limited to whatever works you've copyrighted) without going through the legislature. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary--all software would just be free as in freedom.
- michaelt 14y ago
  The GNU is exactly the opposite of normal copyright. [...] The idea behind normal copyright--what some people here do not like--is to limit others' access to information. The whole point is that you cannot copy something without the right-owner's permission. As I see it, the idea behind copyright is that the creator of a work gets to choose the terms of reproduction. They might choose the GPL for the reasons you state - or they might prefer a different license, like the Affero GPL, or GPL2 instead of GPL3. If we think that shouldn't be the developer's choice, whose should it be?
  - tikhonj 14y ago
    Proponents of the GPL don't see it that way. Rather than seeing it as the creator's right to choose the terms, they see it as the consumer's right to access and modify source code. That's the fundamental split: copyright normally gives the creator the "right" to take away the consumer's rights; the GPL merely prevents this and maintains the consumer's rights. As others have pointed out, the idea behind copyright is to give a creator a limited monopoly over some information (ideally in order to encourage arts and science). The GPL subverts this: not only does the initial creator give up the monopoly, but the license ensures that nobody can subsequently reclaim a monopoly on the work in question. That is, the GPL involves not only giving rights to your consumers but also making sure as many people as possible cannot take those rights away again. Essentially, it shouldn't be the creator's choice at all. The consumer has some rights (like being able to see and modify what runs on their computer) and these rights should not be infringed. That's entire core of the GPL and that's why it's the opposite of copyright normally: it protects the consumer and not the producer. The fact that it happens to be implemented on top of copyright law really is an implementation detail--if it was possible to pass a law protecting the right of every computer owner to be able to access and modify any code running on their system, the FSF would surely support it. In summary: the GPL is about the consumer where copyright is normally about the producer. That's why they are different.
belorn 14y ago
Like other has said, the argument makes absolutely no sense at all. Would you say that "the right to speech" is the same as the "the right to shot people in the head"? Both require the same amount of liberties so they must be the same right? "Freedom to be shot", and "freedom to not be shot" is not the same thing. Yes, both include the world "freedom", but its not the same kind of freedom. Same goes for rights, laws, and in this discussion even software licenses. What count is the Intent and what real world effects it has.

ewillbefull 14y ago

I actually dislike GPL as well. There's a reason why BSD-style licenses have done more for open source in the last decade than GPL. What gives you the impression GPL is well-liked by pirates?

tikhonj 14y ago

This argument always comes up and it never makes any sense. The GNU is exactly the opposite of normal copyright. The fact that it is based on copyright law is just an implementation detail because the FSF does not have enough clout to pass actual laws. It's a clever hack of the legal system, not an ideological reaffirmation of copyright. The idea behind normal copyright--what some people here do not like--is to limit others' access to information. The whole point is that you cannot copy something without the right-owner's permission. The GPL is the opposite. The core idea there is that you are not only allowed to make a copy of something, but you are also allowed to access the source code. In practical terms, this is just as important as being able to copy a program because the only meaningful way to make modifications is with access to the source code. Moreover, the license ensures that anybody using the licensed program keeps it free in the same way. Essentially, where normal copyright keeps you from using the information, the GPL keeps you from using copyright law to keep others from using the information. In a very practical sense, something under the GPL is more free than something in the public domain--I could ship you something containing public domain code and not give you the source code or even let you modify it. I could not do that with the GPL. Another way to look at it is that normal copyright gives rights to the "rights-holder" over the consumer. The GPL gives rights to the consumer (like access to source code) rather than to the rights-holder. The "restrictions" it places are the sort of restrictions any system based around rights has to have--you have the right to do almost anything as long as you do not infringe others' rights. In this context it means you can do anything you want (including selling the software) as long as you do not stop others from modifying and redistributing it. In short: the GPL is the opposite of copyright and it gives the consumer more freedom. The only thing it stops you from doing is taking away others' freedom. The only reason it uses copyright is because copyright effectively allows you to write your own laws (but limited to whatever works you've copyrighted) without going through the legislature. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary--all software would just be free as in freedom.

michaelt 14y ago
The GNU is exactly the opposite of normal copyright. [...] The idea behind normal copyright--what some people here do not like--is to limit others' access to information. The whole point is that you cannot copy something without the right-owner's permission. As I see it, the idea behind copyright is that the creator of a work gets to choose the terms of reproduction. They might choose the GPL for the reasons you state - or they might prefer a different license, like the Affero GPL, or GPL2 instead of GPL3. If we think that shouldn't be the developer's choice, whose should it be?
- tikhonj 14y ago
  Proponents of the GPL don't see it that way. Rather than seeing it as the creator's right to choose the terms, they see it as the consumer's right to access and modify source code. That's the fundamental split: copyright normally gives the creator the "right" to take away the consumer's rights; the GPL merely prevents this and maintains the consumer's rights. As others have pointed out, the idea behind copyright is to give a creator a limited monopoly over some information (ideally in order to encourage arts and science). The GPL subverts this: not only does the initial creator give up the monopoly, but the license ensures that nobody can subsequently reclaim a monopoly on the work in question. That is, the GPL involves not only giving rights to your consumers but also making sure as many people as possible cannot take those rights away again. Essentially, it shouldn't be the creator's choice at all. The consumer has some rights (like being able to see and modify what runs on their computer) and these rights should not be infringed. That's entire core of the GPL and that's why it's the opposite of copyright normally: it protects the consumer and not the producer. The fact that it happens to be implemented on top of copyright law really is an implementation detail--if it was possible to pass a law protecting the right of every computer owner to be able to access and modify any code running on their system, the FSF would surely support it. In summary: the GPL is about the consumer where copyright is normally about the producer. That's why they are different.

belorn 14y ago

Like other has said, the argument makes absolutely no sense at all. Would you say that "the right to speech" is the same as the "the right to shot people in the head"? Both require the same amount of liberties so they must be the same right? "Freedom to be shot", and "freedom to not be shot" is not the same thing. Yes, both include the world "freedom", but its not the same kind of freedom. Same goes for rights, laws, and in this discussion even software licenses. What count is the Intent and what real world effects it has.