6 ms·

I'm a user, and I want to use your library in my product. The GPL limits my freedom.

by pbsdp 13y ago

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
        >The GPL is really about enforcing your ideals onto other people's code if it happens to be reliant on yours. Oh please, enough with the bs, your code won't just 'happen' to be relient on GPL licenced code. It's just as much of a choice as that of end users choosing not to use proprietary code which you keep repeating. And of course it has to do with user rights, that is what GPL preserves. The right to the source code of a binary containing GPL licenced code, the right to modify and build binaries from that said source code. It legally binds anyone who uses GPL licenced code to grant those _rights_ to their end users. Being able to examine the code for the ACTUAL binary you recieve, rather than some original source code which may very well have gone through numerous changes before being compiled into the ACTUAL binary you recieve are very different things. And I've already described how from a developer standpoint this is of importance as they are likely interested in recieving enhancements to their code in 'source code form' if they choose to licence under GPL, but it's also of importance in other aspects aswell since you as an end user may want to examine the source code to make sure it doesn't do something you don't want, or change it's behaviour to do something _you_ do want. Those are definitely '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.

I'm a user, and I want to use your library in my product. The GPL limits my freedom.

by pbsdp 13y ago

I'm a user, and I want to use your library in my product. The GPL limits my freedom.

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
        >The GPL is really about enforcing your ideals onto other people's code if it happens to be reliant on yours. Oh please, enough with the bs, your code won't just 'happen' to be relient on GPL licenced code. It's just as much of a choice as that of end users choosing not to use proprietary code which you keep repeating. And of course it has to do with user rights, that is what GPL preserves. The right to the source code of a binary containing GPL licenced code, the right to modify and build binaries from that said source code. It legally binds anyone who uses GPL licenced code to grant those _rights_ to their end users. Being able to examine the code for the ACTUAL binary you recieve, rather than some original source code which may very well have gone through numerous changes before being compiled into the ACTUAL binary you recieve are very different things. And I've already described how from a developer standpoint this is of importance as they are likely interested in recieving enhancements to their code in 'source code form' if they choose to licence under GPL, but it's also of importance in other aspects aswell since you as an end user may want to examine the source code to make sure it doesn't do something you don't want, or change it's behaviour to do something _you_ do want. Those are definitely '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.