11 ms·

This post is in most respects excellent, but it suffers from a fundamental problem. It starts from the assumption that the goal of free software is to be as wid

This post is in most respects excellent, but it suffers from a fundamental problem. It starts from the assumption that the goal of free software is to be as widely used as possible, and that anything that prevents this is therefore Bad. But widest possible use was never the goal of the Free Software Foundation. They have always been about freedom first and software second, and Stallman has many times stated that he'd rather a program be used less if it results in more freedom, than vice versa. So the goal of the various restrictions imposed by the GPL (in either of the main versions) is to increase freedom. We can usefully have a debate about how well they achieve that goal, and whether the increase in freedom is worth what has to be spent in order to achieve it. But if we do that, let's do it from a position of first having understood why the GPL says the things it does. I saw this summed up an admirably concise way some years ago, but stupidly forgot to note whose soundbite this is: "Saying that the GPL is less free because it forbids proprietary derivatives is like saying the USA is less free because it forbids slavery". Yes, of course it's hyperbole to hold up freedom of software alongside the freedom of people; but this quote shows by example that more freedom doesn't always get achieved by less regulation but by more.

baddox 13y ago
> They have always been about freedom first and software second, and Stallman has many times stated that he'd rather a program be used less if it results in more freedom, than vice versa. I think I disagree with your interpretation, but I think my disagreement hinges on a semantic disagreement about the word "freedom." To me, the GPL is a legal limitation on freedom. It prohibits certain use cases, like distributing that software without its source code. To me, a piece of software is "more free" if its source code is available, but people are still able to do literally anything they want with the source code, including distributing binaries without providing access to the source code. I think the point of the GPL is to utilize the copyright system to ensure access to source code for everyone, not to simply increase freedom. The slavery quip doesn't really make sense, because in that analogy the source code is the slave. So unless we're talking about increasing freedom for source code (which is a strange notion, since most source code is not conscious) rather than increasing freedom for people, my disagreement still applies. The reason forbidding slavery is not generally considered a decrease in freedom is that both slave owners and slaves are people.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  The GPL does not limit freedom, it only limits power. Distributing a binary to a user while denying them the source code, while not strictly a malicious act, is an attack on the user's freedom because it puts the user at a position where the author hold power over him/her. The author allows himself/herself to freely study and modify the program in its preferred format (the source code), but he/she has intentionally made it impossible for the user to do this. Copyleft is about authors willingly removing the powers granted to them by copyright and "redistributing" them so that all users are granted freedom. It's worth noting that the GPL does not say you have to give out source code all the time, you just have to give it out when people ask for it, and you have to make the offer to give it out clear. So the actual issue that you believe is "a limitation on freedom" is the lack of the ability to say no when someone asks for the source code, despite that they have already been distributed a binary. However, there are no practical reasons to do this that don't involve intentionally keeping secrets from people, or intentionally making studying and modification of the program difficult.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    I'm a user, and I want to use your library in my product. The GPL limits my freedom.
    - spacelizard 13y ago
      Your choice of not wanting to accept the GPL doesn't limit your freedom, you had the choice to accept it and you declined. The fact that the software is copyrighted in the first place is the only thing that could be potentially limiting your freedom, and the GPL cannot do anything about that.
      - baddox 13y ago
        Copyrights are not contracts. They do not have to be agreed upon for them to be legally enforceable.
      - pbsdp 13y ago
zanny 13y ago
This is why I try to license my personal stuff gpl or agpl still. At the end of the day, I don't want people using it or modifying it that don't release the source, even if it is less used as a result. The article brings up two camps - gpl vs mit / bsd, and while I use the gpl now on the precedent that the copyright situation is so bad it needs some counter-pressure wherever I can place it, I hope in the long term the outcome is the abolition of copyright entirely. But I put stuff under GPL now because the ultra-restrictive copyrights on proprietary software and their license terms harm creativity so much using the system to force freedom is better than ignoring the problem entirely. To me, at least. The goal of the GPL is user freedom, in an age when the copyright holder / developer (not always the same person) holds all the cards.
- tjaerv 13y ago
  The real counterweight is to release your code into the public domain, opting out of the copyright industry's game altogether. See http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/
  - icebraining 13y ago
    You're not opting out of the copyright industry's game; you can't, it's the law. All you're doing is keeping on rolling the dice, while refusing to take title deed cards for yourself and keeping paying rent.
- japhyr 13y ago
  I just started a project that allows teachers, educators, and interested parties to create, maintain, and fork education standards. Basically, bring long-standing software development concepts to education. After a brief discussion on irc yesterday I went with the AGPL. I want to encourage collaboration, but I don't want some ed tech startup with vc funding to use this code. I did put a note in the readme that if anyone has a good reason to want an MIT license, I'd be open to reconsidering the license. But I can't see a good reason at this point.
  - jallmann 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

> They have always been about freedom first and software second, and Stallman has many times stated that he'd rather a program be used less if it results in more freedom, than vice versa. I think I disagree with your interpretation, but I think my disagreement hinges on a semantic disagreement about the word "freedom." To me, the GPL is a legal limitation on freedom. It prohibits certain use cases, like distributing that software without its source code. To me, a piece of software is "more free" if its source code is available, but people are still able to do literally anything they want with the source code, including distributing binaries without providing access to the source code. I think the point of the GPL is to utilize the copyright system to ensure access to source code for everyone, not to simply increase freedom. The slavery quip doesn't really make sense, because in that analogy the source code is the slave. So unless we're talking about increasing freedom for source code (which is a strange notion, since most source code is not conscious) rather than increasing freedom for people, my disagreement still applies. The reason forbidding slavery is not generally considered a decrease in freedom is that both slave owners and slaves are people.

spacelizard 13y ago
The GPL does not limit freedom, it only limits power. Distributing a binary to a user while denying them the source code, while not strictly a malicious act, is an attack on the user's freedom because it puts the user at a position where the author hold power over him/her. The author allows himself/herself to freely study and modify the program in its preferred format (the source code), but he/she has intentionally made it impossible for the user to do this. Copyleft is about authors willingly removing the powers granted to them by copyright and "redistributing" them so that all users are granted freedom. It's worth noting that the GPL does not say you have to give out source code all the time, you just have to give it out when people ask for it, and you have to make the offer to give it out clear. So the actual issue that you believe is "a limitation on freedom" is the lack of the ability to say no when someone asks for the source code, despite that they have already been distributed a binary. However, there are no practical reasons to do this that don't involve intentionally keeping secrets from people, or intentionally making studying and modification of the program difficult.
- pbsdp 13y ago
  I'm a user, and I want to use your library in my product. The GPL limits my freedom.
  - spacelizard 13y ago
    Your choice of not wanting to accept the GPL doesn't limit your freedom, you had the choice to accept it and you declined. The fact that the software is copyrighted in the first place is the only thing that could be potentially limiting your freedom, and the GPL cannot do anything about that.
    - baddox 13y ago
      Copyrights are not contracts. They do not have to be agreed upon for them to be legally enforceable.
    - pbsdp 13y ago

zanny 13y ago

This is why I try to license my personal stuff gpl or agpl still. At the end of the day, I don't want people using it or modifying it that don't release the source, even if it is less used as a result. The article brings up two camps - gpl vs mit / bsd, and while I use the gpl now on the precedent that the copyright situation is so bad it needs some counter-pressure wherever I can place it, I hope in the long term the outcome is the abolition of copyright entirely. But I put stuff under GPL now because the ultra-restrictive copyrights on proprietary software and their license terms harm creativity so much using the system to force freedom is better than ignoring the problem entirely. To me, at least. The goal of the GPL is user freedom, in an age when the copyright holder / developer (not always the same person) holds all the cards.

tjaerv 13y ago
The real counterweight is to release your code into the public domain, opting out of the copyright industry's game altogether. See http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/
- icebraining 13y ago
  You're not opting out of the copyright industry's game; you can't, it's the law. All you're doing is keeping on rolling the dice, while refusing to take title deed cards for yourself and keeping paying rent.
japhyr 13y ago
I just started a project that allows teachers, educators, and interested parties to create, maintain, and fork education standards. Basically, bring long-standing software development concepts to education. After a brief discussion on irc yesterday I went with the AGPL. I want to encourage collaboration, but I don't want some ed tech startup with vc funding to use this code. I did put a note in the readme that if anyone has a good reason to want an MIT license, I'd be open to reconsidering the license. But I can't see a good reason at this point.
- jallmann 13y ago