4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Are users of GPL software able to combine it with proprietary plugins?
  - jallmann 13y ago
    Plugins are where it gets weird. Technically there should not be proprietary plugins at all with the GPL, but it might depend on the interface or manner of linking (eg, would a HTTP-based "plugin" API be considered a derivative work?). For some cases, licensing the original software under LGPL may be sufficient to support proprietary plugins. Ultimately it's a judgement call by the original author and what use-cases or freedoms he/she wishes to support. Hopefully they've thought that far ahead, though. It's not an easy question for the majority of the population that doesn't quite lean as far as RMS does.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Yes. The GPL doesn't restrict usage, only redistribution.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Yeah I guess this is why it's okay to ship binary blobs independently from the kernel.
- pbsdp 13y ago
  > The GPL protects users, not developers. The users can already choose to not use proprietary software, so what is it protecting them against? Themselves? > You seem to think downstream developers have an entitlement to release proprietary software, even if it goes against the wishes of the original authors ... No, I just believe that the GPL is intellectually dishonest. It's about controlling other people's means of production, with the end-goal of creating a communist ecosystem in which it's essentially impossible to not participate due to inherent market entry costs.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    The users can already choose to not use proprietary software, so what is it protecting them against? Themselves? It's simplistic reasoning to ignore the social effects. For example, non-copyleft free software is extremely vulnerable to the EEE strategy, since any proprietary vendor can take the code and re-release it with extra or changed features under a proprietary license, which might almost extinguish the original software for lack of interest, forcing the user to have to choose between the Free version or the "upgrade", which is actually compatible with everyone else's. No, I just believe that the GPL is intellectually dishonest. It's about controlling other people's means of production, with the end-goal of creating a communist ecosystem in which it's essentially impossible to not participate due to inherent market entry costs. What happened to the person choosing to not use the software? Suddenly when it's the poor proprietary developer, he's being controlled by the bad copyright holders? And how is the GPL intellectually dishonest? Replacing proprietary software by giving free software developers an advantage is an explicit goal of the GNU project. How is it dishonest? In any case, you're fighting the wrong windmill. It's not the GPL that gives anyone such power, it's copyright. It's that government-granted monopoly that allows control over other people's means of production. The solution to your problem is simple: fight for its elimination.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      > And how is the GPL intellectually dishonest? Replacing proprietary software by giving free software developers an advantage is an explicit goal of the GNU project. How is it dishonest? The usual explanation is "four freedoms" and giving users freedom. Leveraging network effects to create a communist shared ownership of the means of production is the honest explanation of the GPL, and that has nothing to do with 'freedom', and everything to do with network-enforced Marxist ideals. > * It's that government-granted monopoly that allows control over other people's means of production. The solution to your problem is simple: fight for its elimination.* I have no problem with copyright, and I don't want to forcibly eliminate the GPL. I'd be happy for it to die an honest death after careful and rational consideration by the industry.

by pbsdp 13y ago

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.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Are users of GPL software able to combine it with proprietary plugins?
- jallmann 13y ago
  Plugins are where it gets weird. Technically there should not be proprietary plugins at all with the GPL, but it might depend on the interface or manner of linking (eg, would a HTTP-based "plugin" API be considered a derivative work?). For some cases, licensing the original software under LGPL may be sufficient to support proprietary plugins. Ultimately it's a judgement call by the original author and what use-cases or freedoms he/she wishes to support. Hopefully they've thought that far ahead, though. It's not an easy question for the majority of the population that doesn't quite lean as far as RMS does.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Yes. The GPL doesn't restrict usage, only redistribution.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Yeah I guess this is why it's okay to ship binary blobs independently from the kernel.
pbsdp 13y ago
> The GPL protects users, not developers. The users can already choose to not use proprietary software, so what is it protecting them against? Themselves? > You seem to think downstream developers have an entitlement to release proprietary software, even if it goes against the wishes of the original authors ... No, I just believe that the GPL is intellectually dishonest. It's about controlling other people's means of production, with the end-goal of creating a communist ecosystem in which it's essentially impossible to not participate due to inherent market entry costs.
- icebraining 13y ago
  The users can already choose to not use proprietary software, so what is it protecting them against? Themselves? It's simplistic reasoning to ignore the social effects. For example, non-copyleft free software is extremely vulnerable to the EEE strategy, since any proprietary vendor can take the code and re-release it with extra or changed features under a proprietary license, which might almost extinguish the original software for lack of interest, forcing the user to have to choose between the Free version or the "upgrade", which is actually compatible with everyone else's. No, I just believe that the GPL is intellectually dishonest. It's about controlling other people's means of production, with the end-goal of creating a communist ecosystem in which it's essentially impossible to not participate due to inherent market entry costs. What happened to the person choosing to not use the software? Suddenly when it's the poor proprietary developer, he's being controlled by the bad copyright holders? And how is the GPL intellectually dishonest? Replacing proprietary software by giving free software developers an advantage is an explicit goal of the GNU project. How is it dishonest? In any case, you're fighting the wrong windmill. It's not the GPL that gives anyone such power, it's copyright. It's that government-granted monopoly that allows control over other people's means of production. The solution to your problem is simple: fight for its elimination.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    > And how is the GPL intellectually dishonest? Replacing proprietary software by giving free software developers an advantage is an explicit goal of the GNU project. How is it dishonest? The usual explanation is "four freedoms" and giving users freedom. Leveraging network effects to create a communist shared ownership of the means of production is the honest explanation of the GPL, and that has nothing to do with 'freedom', and everything to do with network-enforced Marxist ideals. > * It's that government-granted monopoly that allows control over other people's means of production. The solution to your problem is simple: fight for its elimination.* I have no problem with copyright, and I don't want to forcibly eliminate the GPL. I'd be happy for it to die an honest death after careful and rational consideration by the industry.