7 ms·

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

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
    Users of proprietary software have the choice and can decline, too. Since users dont need it to protect their freedom, why is the GPL necessary if not to restrict freedom?
    - gillianseed 13y ago
      Because what it actually protects is rights, rights of the end user. You of course know this, but you instead choose to endlessly harp on the meaning of the word 'freedom'. Licencing your code under GPL grants the recipient of any binary in which your code is included a specific set of rights. These rights include the right to the source code should the recipient want it. This particular right makes GPL very interesting for many developers as they can release code, and then as recipients of modifications of that code, get access to those modifications in source code form and thus gain improvements to their original code.
      - pbsdp 13y ago
        If those users don't want to use code that isn't released liberally, they don't have to. So what are you actually securing for them? It's not freedom, they already have the freedom to not use proprietary software.
        gillianseed 13y ago
        What you secure is the end user right to the source code of the _actual_ binary they recieve, which gives them the further rights to _examine_ and _modify_ said code and generate and _run_ a binary with their own modifications. You know, those end user rights which GPL was created to preserve.
        pbsdp 13y ago
        You don't need the GPL for that; just provide the source code for your software. If users actually care about having the code, they can use your binary for which code exists. If they don't care, they can use proprietary software, or proprietary extensions that make your software better. Either way, the user has full control over their choice of software, and nobody's actions can make your original open source code disappear. The GPL is really about enforcing your ideals onto other people's code if it happens to be reliant on yours. That's a legit quid pro quo for a license, but it has jackall to do with freedom or user rights.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  Only as far as your 'freedom' consists of violating any of the rights which GPL bestows upon end users. GPL exists to preserve rights for end users, and since one of those rights is that of recieving the source code it is incompatible with proprietary projects. As such you can say that GPL is open source code for open source.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    How can you violate rights of end users? Your open source code hasn't disappeared. End users can still use it, copy it; and share it. If end users don't want to use proprietary extensions to open source code, they don't have to. The original code doesn't just disappear.
    - gillianseed 13y ago
      You violate the rights which the GPL licence grants them, which is the rights to the source code of the actual binary they recieve, so that they can examine, modify and run their own versions of the actual binary. In practice this works out well for developers who release their code under the GPL and want to enjoy any enhancements made to their code in return. They will as 'end users' of any distributed modifications have the right to the source code of those modifications. This way those modifications/enhancements aren't locked away from the original developer in a proprietary project.
      - pbsdp 13y ago
        If users don't want to run binaries for which source isn't available, they are under no obligation to do so, and can simg choose to use binaries for which source is provided; no so-called ethical "right" to source code access is violated, as the source once released remains open source.
        gillianseed 13y ago
        And developers who wants to create proprietary projects are under no obligation to use GPL licenced code. What is your point? GPL licenced code comes with conditions, such as that of granting the end users certain rights, including the right to the source code of the actual binary they recieve. Proprietary code by definition will not grant the end user access to the source code from which the binary they recieve was made, and it typically comes with the condition of monetary compensation for it's use. In both these cases the 'end user' can choose not to use what is offered.
- andrewaylett 13y ago
  Try incorporating proprietary code into your product without abiding by the conditions the copyright holder imposes, and see how well that's received.
synchronise 13y ago
Consider this example which is based on actual events. Consider Project A which is based on code released by company X under GPLv2 only. We're grateful for the release of this code and start to develop a project based around it. Then organisation Y releases Library B, something which would help us immensely with our project. However it's released under the GPLv3 and one of two scenarios occurs, they want to change the license but have distributed copyright ownership and cannot contact the original authors so the license cannot be changed, or they don't want to be seen eroding 'freedom', so they refuse. Who is right in this situation? Why should two projects who have the goal of progressing FOSS be doomed to non-collaboration?
- spacelizard 13y ago
  Those projects aren't doomed to non-collaboration because that is a non-issue. Worst case scenario you'll have to modify one of those projects so they can invoke the other one as an external program. Free software license incompatibility is blown way out of proportion.
  - synchronise 13y ago
    This is a real life example of a scenario currently playing out between LibreCAD (GPLv2 only) and LibreDWG (GPLv3) because the former was based on the source code released from a company who has no intention of changing it and the latter is the FSF, who see anything but the latest and greatest GPL version for their own projects as undermining free software. So you have a situation where you have a program and a library that would really benefit each other, yet are unable to combine that code and distribute it.
    - spacelizard 13y ago
      Yes and there are workarounds for it. If they aren't willing to do a workaround and neither of them are willing to compromise on their position (LibreCAD should probably switch to GPLv3, btw), then it's both of their faults. >the FSF, who see anything but the latest and greatest GPL version as undermining free software This is false. The FSF has no problem with people using licenses that aren't the GPLv3. It's suggested that you use the GPLv3, but any license that meets the criteria for being free software is an acceptable free software license.
baddox 13y ago
Substituting "power" for "freedom" doesn't really change anything. You can certainly argue that a software distributor exerts power on a user when they don't provide source code, but you can just as easily argue that a software distributor exerts power on a user when they provide the source code but don't allow derivative works to be distributed without source code.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  The slavery analogy is interesting because it's something that we all agree is unequivocally wrong. People sometimes can't wrap their heads around the GPL because not everyone agrees that e.g. not providing source code is unequivocally wrong, but that's the stance the GPL takes. Imagine a world where slavery isn't prohibited by law, and that isn't going to change, but we still want to discourage it as much as possible. So someone comes up with the idea for a "license" to grant to current slaves: You can have your freedom, with the one restriction that you can't work with anyone who owns slaves unless they free them all and attach the same restriction. The idea being to create a large population of former slaves who have been freed with that condition, so that you create an economic environment in which owning slaves is discouraged, because anyone who continues to own slaves can no longer do business with an economically important population of former slaves. Obviously you get the objection that you're restricting the freedom of the former slaves. The freed slaves would be individually better off if they could work with whoever they wanted, especially if there is a nontrivial population of slave owners who continue to refuse to accept that condition and might otherwise do business with them, but then you lose all the incentive for the existing slave owners to free their slaves which on the whole would result in a net reduction in freedom.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  No, that doesn't follow. Giving certain users the ability to distribute derivative works to other users but yet say no when one of them asks for the source code presents the same misappropriation of power as if the author of the original work was doing it. The point of copyleft and the GPL is that no groups or individuals should be able to exert power over anybody else using the software in question.

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
  Users of proprietary software have the choice and can decline, too. Since users dont need it to protect their freedom, why is the GPL necessary if not to restrict freedom?
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    Because what it actually protects is rights, rights of the end user. You of course know this, but you instead choose to endlessly harp on the meaning of the word 'freedom'. Licencing your code under GPL grants the recipient of any binary in which your code is included a specific set of rights. These rights include the right to the source code should the recipient want it. This particular right makes GPL very interesting for many developers as they can release code, and then as recipients of modifications of that code, get access to those modifications in source code form and thus gain improvements to their original code.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      If those users don't want to use code that isn't released liberally, they don't have to. So what are you actually securing for them? It's not freedom, they already have the freedom to not use proprietary software.
      - gillianseed 13y ago
        What you secure is the end user right to the source code of the _actual_ binary they recieve, which gives them the further rights to _examine_ and _modify_ said code and generate and _run_ a binary with their own modifications. You know, those end user rights which GPL was created to preserve.
        pbsdp 13y ago
        You don't need the GPL for that; just provide the source code for your software. If users actually care about having the code, they can use your binary for which code exists. If they don't care, they can use proprietary software, or proprietary extensions that make your software better. Either way, the user has full control over their choice of software, and nobody's actions can make your original open source code disappear. The GPL is really about enforcing your ideals onto other people's code if it happens to be reliant on yours. That's a legit quid pro quo for a license, but it has jackall to do with freedom or user rights.
gillianseed 13y ago
Only as far as your 'freedom' consists of violating any of the rights which GPL bestows upon end users. GPL exists to preserve rights for end users, and since one of those rights is that of recieving the source code it is incompatible with proprietary projects. As such you can say that GPL is open source code for open source.
- pbsdp 13y ago
  How can you violate rights of end users? Your open source code hasn't disappeared. End users can still use it, copy it; and share it. If end users don't want to use proprietary extensions to open source code, they don't have to. The original code doesn't just disappear.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    You violate the rights which the GPL licence grants them, which is the rights to the source code of the actual binary they recieve, so that they can examine, modify and run their own versions of the actual binary. In practice this works out well for developers who release their code under the GPL and want to enjoy any enhancements made to their code in return. They will as 'end users' of any distributed modifications have the right to the source code of those modifications. This way those modifications/enhancements aren't locked away from the original developer in a proprietary project.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      If users don't want to run binaries for which source isn't available, they are under no obligation to do so, and can simg choose to use binaries for which source is provided; no so-called ethical "right" to source code access is violated, as the source once released remains open source.
      - gillianseed 13y ago
        And developers who wants to create proprietary projects are under no obligation to use GPL licenced code. What is your point? GPL licenced code comes with conditions, such as that of granting the end users certain rights, including the right to the source code of the actual binary they recieve. Proprietary code by definition will not grant the end user access to the source code from which the binary they recieve was made, and it typically comes with the condition of monetary compensation for it's use. In both these cases the 'end user' can choose not to use what is offered.
andrewaylett 13y ago
Try incorporating proprietary code into your product without abiding by the conditions the copyright holder imposes, and see how well that's received.

synchronise 13y ago

Consider this example which is based on actual events. Consider Project A which is based on code released by company X under GPLv2 only. We're grateful for the release of this code and start to develop a project based around it. Then organisation Y releases Library B, something which would help us immensely with our project. However it's released under the GPLv3 and one of two scenarios occurs, they want to change the license but have distributed copyright ownership and cannot contact the original authors so the license cannot be changed, or they don't want to be seen eroding 'freedom', so they refuse. Who is right in this situation? Why should two projects who have the goal of progressing FOSS be doomed to non-collaboration?

spacelizard 13y ago
Those projects aren't doomed to non-collaboration because that is a non-issue. Worst case scenario you'll have to modify one of those projects so they can invoke the other one as an external program. Free software license incompatibility is blown way out of proportion.
- synchronise 13y ago
  This is a real life example of a scenario currently playing out between LibreCAD (GPLv2 only) and LibreDWG (GPLv3) because the former was based on the source code released from a company who has no intention of changing it and the latter is the FSF, who see anything but the latest and greatest GPL version for their own projects as undermining free software. So you have a situation where you have a program and a library that would really benefit each other, yet are unable to combine that code and distribute it.
  - spacelizard 13y ago
    Yes and there are workarounds for it. If they aren't willing to do a workaround and neither of them are willing to compromise on their position (LibreCAD should probably switch to GPLv3, btw), then it's both of their faults. >the FSF, who see anything but the latest and greatest GPL version as undermining free software This is false. The FSF has no problem with people using licenses that aren't the GPLv3. It's suggested that you use the GPLv3, but any license that meets the criteria for being free software is an acceptable free software license.

baddox 13y ago

Substituting "power" for "freedom" doesn't really change anything. You can certainly argue that a software distributor exerts power on a user when they don't provide source code, but you can just as easily argue that a software distributor exerts power on a user when they provide the source code but don't allow derivative works to be distributed without source code.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
The slavery analogy is interesting because it's something that we all agree is unequivocally wrong. People sometimes can't wrap their heads around the GPL because not everyone agrees that e.g. not providing source code is unequivocally wrong, but that's the stance the GPL takes. Imagine a world where slavery isn't prohibited by law, and that isn't going to change, but we still want to discourage it as much as possible. So someone comes up with the idea for a "license" to grant to current slaves: You can have your freedom, with the one restriction that you can't work with anyone who owns slaves unless they free them all and attach the same restriction. The idea being to create a large population of former slaves who have been freed with that condition, so that you create an economic environment in which owning slaves is discouraged, because anyone who continues to own slaves can no longer do business with an economically important population of former slaves. Obviously you get the objection that you're restricting the freedom of the former slaves. The freed slaves would be individually better off if they could work with whoever they wanted, especially if there is a nontrivial population of slave owners who continue to refuse to accept that condition and might otherwise do business with them, but then you lose all the incentive for the existing slave owners to free their slaves which on the whole would result in a net reduction in freedom.
spacelizard 13y ago
No, that doesn't follow. Giving certain users the ability to distribute derivative works to other users but yet say no when one of them asks for the source code presents the same misappropriation of power as if the author of the original work was doing it. The point of copyleft and the GPL is that no groups or individuals should be able to exert power over anybody else using the software in question.