3 ms·

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 t

by 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.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      > In both these cases the 'end user' can choose not to use what is offered. Exactly -- so what's the point of offering a 'right' the user already has, if it means taking away rights from developers? Users can already choose to not use proprietary software, they don't need the GPL to enforce availability of the open aource software they use.
      - gillianseed 13y ago
        >Users can already choose to not use proprietary software And developers can already CHOOSE not to use GPL licenced code, this part of your argument has no point whatsoever. The GPL licence exist to grant the right of end users to examine, modify and compile/run the source code of the binaries they recieve. The user does NOT 'already have these rights' with proprietary software. When a developer licences their code under GPL it means that all recipients of the code in both it's original state or modified will have the above rights. And again since developers will be 'end users' themselves once they recieve a binary containing modifications to their code, it creates an effective tit for tat mechanism where they will recieve the source code of any modifications. There is no 'right' taken away from 'developers', they have no 'right' to use code other than under the conditions set upon it by it's owner, this holds true for all licences.
        pbsdp 13y ago
        Users can also CHOOSE not to use proprietary software. You're taking away their right to choose to use your software in a proprietary context.
        gillianseed 13y ago
        Nonsense, by that logic your proprietary software is taking away users 'right' to use your proprietary software in an open source context. Your argument has nothing but holes in it.
        13y ago

by pbsdp 13y ago

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.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    > In both these cases the 'end user' can choose not to use what is offered. Exactly -- so what's the point of offering a 'right' the user already has, if it means taking away rights from developers? Users can already choose to not use proprietary software, they don't need the GPL to enforce availability of the open aource software they use.
    - gillianseed 13y ago
      >Users can already choose to not use proprietary software And developers can already CHOOSE not to use GPL licenced code, this part of your argument has no point whatsoever. The GPL licence exist to grant the right of end users to examine, modify and compile/run the source code of the binaries they recieve. The user does NOT 'already have these rights' with proprietary software. When a developer licences their code under GPL it means that all recipients of the code in both it's original state or modified will have the above rights. And again since developers will be 'end users' themselves once they recieve a binary containing modifications to their code, it creates an effective tit for tat mechanism where they will recieve the source code of any modifications. There is no 'right' taken away from 'developers', they have no 'right' to use code other than under the conditions set upon it by it's owner, this holds true for all licences.
      - pbsdp 13y ago
        Users can also CHOOSE not to use proprietary software. You're taking away their right to choose to use your software in a proprietary context.
        gillianseed 13y ago
        Nonsense, by that logic your proprietary software is taking away users 'right' to use your proprietary software in an open source context. Your argument has nothing but holes in it.
        13y ago