3 ms·

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 sourc

by 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.
        pbsdp 13y ago
        > Nonsense, by that logic your proprietary software is taking away users 'right' to use your proprietary software in an open source context. Indeed, it is. The difference is that we're not intellectually dishonest about it, and don't try to dress up the mutual exchange of value (user's money for our code) in some sort of ridiculous redefinition of "freedom", and we certainly don't claim to be "more free" than liberally licensed open-source software.
        gillianseed 13y ago
        >and don't try to dress up the mutual exchange of value (user's money for our code) in some sort of ridiculous redefinition of "freedom" Bullshit, this is what you've been trying to do during this entire discussion. You claim over and over again that the the user has the 'freedom' not to use proprietary software. But when that same 'freedom' is directed at developers who has the same 'freedom' not to use GPL licenced code, then suddenly you say their 'rights' are being taken away. According to you proprietary developers are somehow robbed of a 'right' when they can't use GPL licenced code, which is nonsense as the only right they have to use ANY code is by the conditions set by the code owner, be it conditions of a licence or conditions of monetary compensation. Your hypocrisy shines through your entire line of poorly constructed arguments. You dislike GPL because you as a proprietary developer can't use that code, which for some reason you think you have a 'right' to.

by pbsdp 13y ago

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.
      - pbsdp 13y ago
        > Nonsense, by that logic your proprietary software is taking away users 'right' to use your proprietary software in an open source context. Indeed, it is. The difference is that we're not intellectually dishonest about it, and don't try to dress up the mutual exchange of value (user's money for our code) in some sort of ridiculous redefinition of "freedom", and we certainly don't claim to be "more free" than liberally licensed open-source software.
        gillianseed 13y ago
        >and don't try to dress up the mutual exchange of value (user's money for our code) in some sort of ridiculous redefinition of "freedom" Bullshit, this is what you've been trying to do during this entire discussion. You claim over and over again that the the user has the 'freedom' not to use proprietary software. But when that same 'freedom' is directed at developers who has the same 'freedom' not to use GPL licenced code, then suddenly you say their 'rights' are being taken away. According to you proprietary developers are somehow robbed of a 'right' when they can't use GPL licenced code, which is nonsense as the only right they have to use ANY code is by the conditions set by the code owner, be it conditions of a licence or conditions of monetary compensation. Your hypocrisy shines through your entire line of poorly constructed arguments. You dislike GPL because you as a proprietary developer can't use that code, which for some reason you think you have a 'right' to.