4 ms·
I consider the GPL a declaration of user rights (the right to source code, for all users, in perpetuity). I like freedom. I would actually prefer the BSD licen
by vy8vWJlco 14y ago
I consider the GPL a declaration of user rights (the right to source code, for all users, in perpetuity). I like freedom. I would actually prefer the BSD license if my experiences hadn't convinced me of a different human nature. It's an unbalanced equation. I would happily go with the BSD license if everyone else did (or at least "mostly everyone" else did), for the same reason that I would support gun control if it applied to everyone, including police. I don't consider either practical for users/netizens. Thus, the GPL guarantees certain "rights." :)
- justincormack 14y agoBut as open source wins is that not happening? I see that as the reason for the shift to BSD licenses as time goes on.
- vy8vWJlco 14y agoFair. As I said, I would rather it weren't necessary to codify the quid pro quo "rights and responsabilities." At the same time, I can't imagine not wanting the right (freedom) to view the code for software I use. (Hey, that's why I choose open over closed in the first place). The spirit of the GPL IMHO is just "pay it forward," or at least a "don't use it to peck me to death or blame be when you drop it on your foot." I agree, it puts a damper on gift-giving, but I just can't see another way. In the same way, I wish it weren't necessary to spell out human rights, but even for something as important as that, not everyone always plays nice. (I mean, people burned witches, to pick just one random morbid absurdity.) I wish the "NO WARRANTY" warnings weren't necessary either but, as the expression goes: "no good deed goes unpunished." :\