6 ms·

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 restri

by 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.
        pbsdp 13y ago
        Your entire argument depends on the fiction that users can't make their own choices, or that somehow your code can be made non-OSS once released. Neither is true, and this hokey 'user rights' notion is just a thinly veiled justification for a paternalistic communist view of open source collaboration, in which you want to control not only your own code, but the code that other people write, too. It wouldn't be so insidious if it was presented honestly, as a set of limitations on freedom for your own benefit as the author of the GPL software, rather than in terms of the moral high ground of granting freedoms.
        spacelizard 13y ago
        >Neither is true, and this hokey 'user rights' notion is just a thinly veiled justification for a paternalistic communist view of open source collaboration, in which you want to control not only your own code, but the code that other people write, too. No, this makes no sense. The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this, the main goal of it is to ensure that all users have equal control over the software. I don't know know how you draw the conclusion that the GPL only benefits the author, as the author loses most if not all of the (unjust) powers granted by copyright by publishing under the GPL.

by 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.
      - pbsdp 13y ago
        Your entire argument depends on the fiction that users can't make their own choices, or that somehow your code can be made non-OSS once released. Neither is true, and this hokey 'user rights' notion is just a thinly veiled justification for a paternalistic communist view of open source collaboration, in which you want to control not only your own code, but the code that other people write, too. It wouldn't be so insidious if it was presented honestly, as a set of limitations on freedom for your own benefit as the author of the GPL software, rather than in terms of the moral high ground of granting freedoms.
        spacelizard 13y ago
        >Neither is true, and this hokey 'user rights' notion is just a thinly veiled justification for a paternalistic communist view of open source collaboration, in which you want to control not only your own code, but the code that other people write, too. No, this makes no sense. The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this, the main goal of it is to ensure that all users have equal control over the software. I don't know know how you draw the conclusion that the GPL only benefits the author, as the author loses most if not all of the (unjust) powers granted by copyright by publishing under the GPL.