3 ms·

> The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this ... So copyleft/GPL licensing isn't an atte

by pbsdp 13y ago

> The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this ... So copyleft/GPL licensing isn't an attempt to 'control' code? Despite the fact that this is exactly what they do? > ... the main goal of it is to ensure that all users have equal control over the software. The users already have the choice to use open-source software vs. proprietary software. If they want to have "equal control" over the software, all they have to do is make the choice to only use open-source 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. The author enters into a quid-pro-quo arrangement by which they get access to other people's code under terms equal to their own, and they're free to relicense their own code for whatever commercial use they want. It's an attempt to create a communistic shared ownership of code.

spacelizard 13y ago
Copyright is what allows people to "control code." Copyleft is necessary to in essence "reverse the effects" of copyright. So yes it does technically leverage the control copyright provides, but this is necessary as everything is copyrighted by default. The author being able to re-license code he owns the copyrights to is an unfortunate side effect of copyright, but there is little that copyleft can do about that, it could happen regardless of the license chosen. A possible solution would be to transfer copyright to a group or person you know will never license anything under a proprietary license, such as the FSF. Please refrain from using non-sequiturs like "communistic" to describe things. Copyleft does not deny anyone the ability to exercise any freedom including selling the software. The idea of copyright, and the idea that software should have "owners" are non-capitalistic ideas to begin with, so if anything the proprietary software companies are practicing authoritarianism.
- pbsdp 13y ago
  It's hardly a non-sequitor; the parallels with Marxist thought on common ownership of the means of production are rather undeniable. Like communism did to economies, the GPL has done our industry immeasurable harm by attempting to enforce sharing, creating closed ecosystems where the cost of market entry was so high that other's had no choice but to participate -- such as was the case with GCC, until the GPLv3 gave Apple sufficient cause to make a massive investment in breaking the GPL's shackles on the compiler/runtime tools software market.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    >the GPL has done our industry immeasurable harm by attempting to enforce sharing, creating closed ecosystems Your 'logic' is ridicoulus, GPL is no more 'enforcing' sharing than proprietary software is 'enforcing' non-sharing. And proprietary code is the epitome of a 'closed ecosystem' as it by definition doesn't share it's source code. Meanwhile GPL code is freely shared amongst compatible licenced code. Overall your entire line of thought is clearly that developers should not be allowed to share open source unless they allow it to be used in proprietary code, because if they don't they cause 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry. If anything it's your kind of person who has done 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry, leeches looking for a quick buck, who thinks it's unfair if they have to compete against open source if they can't take that open source and modify and sell it. Which in the end is all that your arguments boils down to, you want the right to use someone else's code without having to return the favour, if you can't then you cry foul. Whenever I come across someone like you I'm really glad the GPL exists as an alternative.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      > Your 'logic' is ridicoulus, GPL is no more 'enforcing' sharing than proprietary software is 'enforcing' non-sharing. You call my logic ridiculous, and then you reiterate my entire point. The GPL is enforcing sharing in the same way proprietary software is enforcing non-sharing. Whereas the MIT and BSD licenses provide just as many freedoms as the GPL, without enforcing anything. They are, defacto, more free, both for end users and end developers. End users are free to only use open-source products, if they so desire, and developers are free to use liberally licensed open source however they wish to, too. > Overall your entire line of thought is clearly that developers should not be allowed to share open source unless they allow it to be used in proprietary code, because if they don't they cause 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry. This is a strawman argument that has no basis in what I actually said. I think people should be allowed to use the GPL, just like I think people should be allowed to advocate communism. I also think that we should do our best to demonstrate the fallaciousness of their arguments, because they have the capacity to cause significant harm to our industry. > Whenever I come across someone like you I'm really glad the GPL exists as an alternative. And whenever I come across someone like you, it is made apparent that the GPL is more of a religion and an a political statement, rather than a reasoned decision made from an understanding of the economic and human realities of industry and our society.

by pbsdp 13y ago

spacelizard 13y ago

Copyright is what allows people to "control code." Copyleft is necessary to in essence "reverse the effects" of copyright. So yes it does technically leverage the control copyright provides, but this is necessary as everything is copyrighted by default. The author being able to re-license code he owns the copyrights to is an unfortunate side effect of copyright, but there is little that copyleft can do about that, it could happen regardless of the license chosen. A possible solution would be to transfer copyright to a group or person you know will never license anything under a proprietary license, such as the FSF. Please refrain from using non-sequiturs like "communistic" to describe things. Copyleft does not deny anyone the ability to exercise any freedom including selling the software. The idea of copyright, and the idea that software should have "owners" are non-capitalistic ideas to begin with, so if anything the proprietary software companies are practicing authoritarianism.

pbsdp 13y ago
It's hardly a non-sequitor; the parallels with Marxist thought on common ownership of the means of production are rather undeniable. Like communism did to economies, the GPL has done our industry immeasurable harm by attempting to enforce sharing, creating closed ecosystems where the cost of market entry was so high that other's had no choice but to participate -- such as was the case with GCC, until the GPLv3 gave Apple sufficient cause to make a massive investment in breaking the GPL's shackles on the compiler/runtime tools software market.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  >the GPL has done our industry immeasurable harm by attempting to enforce sharing, creating closed ecosystems Your 'logic' is ridicoulus, GPL is no more 'enforcing' sharing than proprietary software is 'enforcing' non-sharing. And proprietary code is the epitome of a 'closed ecosystem' as it by definition doesn't share it's source code. Meanwhile GPL code is freely shared amongst compatible licenced code. Overall your entire line of thought is clearly that developers should not be allowed to share open source unless they allow it to be used in proprietary code, because if they don't they cause 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry. If anything it's your kind of person who has done 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry, leeches looking for a quick buck, who thinks it's unfair if they have to compete against open source if they can't take that open source and modify and sell it. Which in the end is all that your arguments boils down to, you want the right to use someone else's code without having to return the favour, if you can't then you cry foul. Whenever I come across someone like you I'm really glad the GPL exists as an alternative.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    > Your 'logic' is ridicoulus, GPL is no more 'enforcing' sharing than proprietary software is 'enforcing' non-sharing. You call my logic ridiculous, and then you reiterate my entire point. The GPL is enforcing sharing in the same way proprietary software is enforcing non-sharing. Whereas the MIT and BSD licenses provide just as many freedoms as the GPL, without enforcing anything. They are, defacto, more free, both for end users and end developers. End users are free to only use open-source products, if they so desire, and developers are free to use liberally licensed open source however they wish to, too. > Overall your entire line of thought is clearly that developers should not be allowed to share open source unless they allow it to be used in proprietary code, because if they don't they cause 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry. This is a strawman argument that has no basis in what I actually said. I think people should be allowed to use the GPL, just like I think people should be allowed to advocate communism. I also think that we should do our best to demonstrate the fallaciousness of their arguments, because they have the capacity to cause significant harm to our industry. > Whenever I come across someone like you I'm really glad the GPL exists as an alternative. And whenever I come across someone like you, it is made apparent that the GPL is more of a religion and an a political statement, rather than a reasoned decision made from an understanding of the economic and human realities of industry and our society.