6 ms·

> According to many, including the FSF, GNU, Stallman and myself, increasing access to the source code for everyone is increasing freedom. Once released freely

by pbsdp 13y ago

> According to many, including the FSF, GNU, Stallman and myself, increasing access to the source code for everyone is increasing freedom. Once released freely, the source code never stops being free, so I don't really know what they're talking about in terms of "freedom". MIT licensed code is almost infinitely free, it will never stop being free, and nobody can take it away from you. It seems to me that they're interested in forcing other people's source code to be free.

icebraining 13y ago
When some corporation sells you some proprietary software, the consumer has the FREEDOM to choose if he wants to fork over his cash in exchange for it. When the proprietary developer encounters some piece of GPL software, he's being forced to comply with it, even if it's still his own decision whether or not to incorporate the code in his project. Ah, language. (TL;DR: nobody is forcing anyone to accept the GPL. The GPL offers you a deal - passing forward the four freedoms is just the price of using the library.)
- pbsdp 13y ago
  The GPL does offer a deal, but its dishonest to call it 'freedom'.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    The GPL 'freedom' is not that of freedom from licence conditions, it's about the freedom(s) given to the end user(s) through to these licence conditions. Personally I've always thought that it would be better if they just used the term 'rights' which is what the GPL conditions actually grant the end user, I can't say I find the wording 'dishonest' though, just a poor choice.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      The license grants rights and imposes limitations. One of those limitations prevents users from mixing code freely. Users already had the right to not use proprietary products; what the GPL has actually done is to take away their right to use your code with a proprietary product. As such, you've granted users fewer rights as compared to liberal open source licenses, not more.
      - jallmann 13y ago
        Users -- those who are actually interacting with a running version of the software -- lose nothing with the GPL. On the contrary, their rights to the code are secured. Developers -- those who modify and redistribute the software, in binary form or otherwise -- do indeed have restrictions designed to protect the rights of users. So yes, the GPL does impose restrictions in specific cases to secure rights in the general case.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        pbsdp 13y ago
        > Users -- those who are actually interacting with a running version of the software -- lose nothing with the GPL. On the contrary, their rights to the code are secured. They've been denied the 'right' to use proprietary extensions to the software. Those extensions may provide more benefit to the user than the open source software alone: see also, Mac OS X. That's no less real a 'right' than the 'right' to have access to the source code, which is something they've never lost because open-source always remains open-source, and they remain free to only use open-source software. > So yes, the GPL does impose restrictions in specific cases to secure rights in the general case. Those rights are already secured, because nobody forces users to use proprietary software. If they only want to use software where code is available, they have every right to do so.
        jallmann 13y ago
        You are, once again, either misunderstanding or willfully misrepresenting everything that's being said. Users aren't being denied anything, because proprietary software doesn't exist under the GPL. Developers and distributors do lose the chance to keep their code closed. The GPL protects users, not developers. You seem to think downstream developers have an entitlement to release proprietary software, even if it goes against the wishes of the original authors. News flash: devs aren't forced to use GPL'd software, either. If you want to keep your software proprietary, you're free to use something under another license, or write something under your own copyright. Really, it's not even about being "open source" per se; the motivations of the GPL go much deeper than simply making the code available. But you obviously don't agree with those, from the other thread.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    No, it's just a different perspective on freedom. "[A]ll men may be restrained from invading another's rights and from doing harm to one another, and [this] law of nature... which wills the peace and preservation of all mankind... is... put into every man's hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation" -- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
jallmann 13y ago
It's not just the code itself, but also derivatives thereof. Eg, no one would argue that iOS is free in any sense of the word. There are many, many reasons for wanting the ability to inspect, modify and compile code yourself. The GPL secures those rights in perpetuity, while other licenses are more lax towards those particular rights. So, for example, you'd be losing that freedom by using BSD-derived iOS. Basically the GPL is designed to protect users of the software, not developers of the software.
- pbsdp 13y ago
  Those rights are already secured in pepetuity. Your code, once released as opensource, is always opensource. If users don't want to use code that contains proprietary modifications to your code, nobody is forcing them to -- your opensource code hasn't disappeared.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    But the rights in question are those of the end user, and these rights include that of recieving the source code of the actual binary containing GPL licenced code, which will include any (possible) modifications of said GPL code. This is in my opinion the main attraction GPL has for developers, as they as 'end users' are given the right to any source code modifications done to their original code.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      Users already have that right with liberally licensed open source code. If they don't want to use proprietary extensions for which they can't acquire the source, that's fine; nobody is forcing them to.
      - gillianseed 13y ago
        >Users already have that right with liberally licensed open source code No they don't have the right to the source code of the actual binary they recieve under liberal licencing.

by pbsdp 13y ago

icebraining 13y ago

When some corporation sells you some proprietary software, the consumer has the FREEDOM to choose if he wants to fork over his cash in exchange for it. When the proprietary developer encounters some piece of GPL software, he's being forced to comply with it, even if it's still his own decision whether or not to incorporate the code in his project. Ah, language. (TL;DR: nobody is forcing anyone to accept the GPL. The GPL offers you a deal - passing forward the four freedoms is just the price of using the library.)

pbsdp 13y ago
The GPL does offer a deal, but its dishonest to call it 'freedom'.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  The GPL 'freedom' is not that of freedom from licence conditions, it's about the freedom(s) given to the end user(s) through to these licence conditions. Personally I've always thought that it would be better if they just used the term 'rights' which is what the GPL conditions actually grant the end user, I can't say I find the wording 'dishonest' though, just a poor choice.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    The license grants rights and imposes limitations. One of those limitations prevents users from mixing code freely. Users already had the right to not use proprietary products; what the GPL has actually done is to take away their right to use your code with a proprietary product. As such, you've granted users fewer rights as compared to liberal open source licenses, not more.
    - jallmann 13y ago
      Users -- those who are actually interacting with a running version of the software -- lose nothing with the GPL. On the contrary, their rights to the code are secured. Developers -- those who modify and redistribute the software, in binary form or otherwise -- do indeed have restrictions designed to protect the rights of users. So yes, the GPL does impose restrictions in specific cases to secure rights in the general case.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - pbsdp 13y ago
        > Users -- those who are actually interacting with a running version of the software -- lose nothing with the GPL. On the contrary, their rights to the code are secured. They've been denied the 'right' to use proprietary extensions to the software. Those extensions may provide more benefit to the user than the open source software alone: see also, Mac OS X. That's no less real a 'right' than the 'right' to have access to the source code, which is something they've never lost because open-source always remains open-source, and they remain free to only use open-source software. > So yes, the GPL does impose restrictions in specific cases to secure rights in the general case. Those rights are already secured, because nobody forces users to use proprietary software. If they only want to use software where code is available, they have every right to do so.
        jallmann 13y ago
        You are, once again, either misunderstanding or willfully misrepresenting everything that's being said. Users aren't being denied anything, because proprietary software doesn't exist under the GPL. Developers and distributors do lose the chance to keep their code closed. The GPL protects users, not developers. You seem to think downstream developers have an entitlement to release proprietary software, even if it goes against the wishes of the original authors. News flash: devs aren't forced to use GPL'd software, either. If you want to keep your software proprietary, you're free to use something under another license, or write something under your own copyright. Really, it's not even about being "open source" per se; the motivations of the GPL go much deeper than simply making the code available. But you obviously don't agree with those, from the other thread.
- icebraining 13y ago
  No, it's just a different perspective on freedom. "[A]ll men may be restrained from invading another's rights and from doing harm to one another, and [this] law of nature... which wills the peace and preservation of all mankind... is... put into every man's hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation" -- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government

jallmann 13y ago

It's not just the code itself, but also derivatives thereof. Eg, no one would argue that iOS is free in any sense of the word. There are many, many reasons for wanting the ability to inspect, modify and compile code yourself. The GPL secures those rights in perpetuity, while other licenses are more lax towards those particular rights. So, for example, you'd be losing that freedom by using BSD-derived iOS. Basically the GPL is designed to protect users of the software, not developers of the software.

pbsdp 13y ago
Those rights are already secured in pepetuity. Your code, once released as opensource, is always opensource. If users don't want to use code that contains proprietary modifications to your code, nobody is forcing them to -- your opensource code hasn't disappeared.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  But the rights in question are those of the end user, and these rights include that of recieving the source code of the actual binary containing GPL licenced code, which will include any (possible) modifications of said GPL code. This is in my opinion the main attraction GPL has for developers, as they as 'end users' are given the right to any source code modifications done to their original code.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    Users already have that right with liberally licensed open source code. If they don't want to use proprietary extensions for which they can't acquire the source, that's fine; nobody is forcing them to.
    - gillianseed 13y ago
      >Users already have that right with liberally licensed open source code No they don't have the right to the source code of the actual binary they recieve under liberal licencing.