5 ms·

Sadly, the word "free" always has strings attached. For GNU, the GPL license disallows "The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions, whe

Sadly, the word "free" always has strings attached. For GNU, the GPL license disallows "The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish." You're not allowed to attach non-free code or remove the over-complex license agreement, which can make the whole software useless for many purposes. It's not right to call GPL software free, it should rather be "no cost and slightly restricted use".

epistasis 13y ago
I wish he'd stop using the word "free" and only use "libre." The FSF and Stallman's definition of "free" (as it pertains to freedom) is not mine, and I have found few that actually agree with it. Open source's definition of freedom is far more universal, I believe. And using "libre" also gets around the "free as in pizza" distinction.
- thejteam 13y ago
  I don't like "free" but I wouldn't want a new term to explain to a layperson either.
  - kunai 13y ago
    Libre. Liberty. Done.
    - quadrangle 13y ago
      Yeah, but remember, as long as others don't agree, it's tough. There's "free" "libre" and "open". The only answer is to say: THOSE THINGS. So, use "free/libre/open" i.e. FLO
- chatman 13y ago
  Open source's definition is incomplete when it comes to protecting the freedom of users. And, libre doesn't imply "free as in pizza" to me.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > And, libre doesn't imply "free as in pizza" to me. Probably because it is not suppose to....
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    That's because open source is not necessarily related to freedom. It's a purely pragmatic issue, though a core property of free software, but by itself it does not guarantee freedom. Also, free beer > free pizza.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Gratis source once you've been (legitimately) given the binaries is a core property of free software. Gratis in general is a common but incidental property of free software.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  That's more of a problem with the English language.
  - elclanrs 13y ago
    Right, gratis = free, libre = free.
e12e 13y ago
I think the GPL is widely misunderstood by developers. The freedom the GPL is concerned with, and the reasoning behind it, is to preserve the rights and freedoms of the user. That is, when you acquire a product (for free, or for a fee) -- it seeks to make sure that you can do use that product as you wish. And that if you re-sell it, or share it, those same rights are available for the next user down the line. The GPL achieves this by bending copyright into copyleft. It is not concerned with allowing people to make money repackaging a piece of software and locking it down in various ways. So, it is all about freedoms, just maybe not the freedoms that some developers thinks it is/should be about.
- epistasis 13y ago
  What specific rights and freedoms does the user have with libre software that they do not with open source software?
  - thristian 13y ago
    Free or "libre" software is software that obeys the Four Freedoms. Much "open source" software is also Free software, but not necessarily all of it. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but for a while Microsoft would provide source-code to the Windows NT kernel to universities and academic institutions; the source was open (for some definition of "open") but because Microsoft did not allow redistribution and modification, and only allowed the code to be used for educational purposes, it was not Free software.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    Developer A writes some code. Developer B makes device-specific alterations and puts it on a device. Consumer C buys the device. If A GPL'd the software then C has a right to the exact code running on their device. This is not the case under other licenses that people like to call "more free".
  - Decade 13y ago
    Let's have a specific example. The Linux kernel. Technically, it's GPLv2, but in practice the copyright holders don't bother to enforce the copyright license. Linus Torvalds is the acme of "pragmatic" open source. What right is missing: The ability to compile a new kernel for an embedded device. Qualcomm, Marvell, Broadcom, ARM, NVIDIA, and many others. They provide binary device drivers that work only with specific versions of the Linux kernel. Consequently, my home router has more computing power than my desktop 20 years ago, but my desktop was free to run any software and my router is just a router. Also, Android devices almost never update, for the same reason.
thejteam 13y ago
There is certainly a need for a radically simplified version of the GPL. The average person does not understand all of the ramifications of the license. Here's a scenario that hinders the distribution of open source software: Teacher: Here, children. Here is some free software. Parent of child: Thanks. It is GPL. Give me the source. Teacher: Huh? There needs to be a license that is similar to the GPL in scope but is readable and clear about what is required to a person who has never compiled software in their life and is not a lawyer. Open source projects need to realize that not everybody is a software engineer. Not everybody is up to date on the latest terminology. If they want laypeople to download and distribute code, make it easy to get. And above all, communicate clearly in language they can understand.
- thristian 13y ago
  Have you read the GPL? It uses fairly simple language, no legal jargon, and it's a lot shorter than some EULAs I've seen. I imagine a lot of people just mentally file it under 'legalese' and skip over it, but even a "simplified" GPL wouldn't prevent that.
  - forrestthewoods 13y ago
    There are and continue to be wild disagreements over GPL and what it means. Is linking against a DLL considered a derived work? It depends on who you ask! Stallman thinks yes. Others think no.
    - thristian 13y ago
      Isn't that a vagueness in copyright law itself? You could avoid the vagueness by making the GPL stricter and more explicit, but that seems like the direct opposite of 'simplification'.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      It tends to be considered so by the people that write the GPL'd software. That's why the LGPL exists. If you're looking for a way to use someone's software components against their wishes, and just looking for a legal way of doing so, then you may be right. If you actually want to respect the wishes of the author OTOH...
tjr 13y ago
Sure: the GPL does not grant you the freedom to alter the license under which the software was given to you, nor to mix the software with other software under a conflicting license. To do either of those things would work against the freedoms that the GPL explicitly promotes. Other licenses, such as the X11 license, let you embed the software into proprietary projects. So in that sense you are granted more freedom. But doing that denies other freedoms that the GPL explicitly grants.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  You can absolutely mix GPL software and incompatably licensed software. What you cannot do is redistribute that combination.
  - tjr 13y ago
    Thank you! I was referring to redistribution, but was unclear.
belorn 13y ago
The author of the above comment do not understand software licenses, and the whole commented is constructed around that confusion. > You're not allowed to ... or remove the license agreement No license agreement allows you as a recipient to ignore the license. At best, you can redistribute a "all right reserved" copyrighted work, while you yourself follows the license. At no point can you actually remove a license and then use it in a way that require authorized permission under copyright law. You would also have a hard time finding such copyright license. Both BSD and MIT requires that the license are kept in all copies. Removing the license there would be as illegal as it would be to remove the GPL. Simply put: if you get sued for copyright violation, its the license that the accused must raise in defense. Removing it is guarantied to be illegal except in rare situations such as wtfpl.
- itchitawa 13y ago
  I just discovered this is a popular political debate so shouldn't be in HN. I do understand how licenses work, just take issue with using the word "free" for something that has artificial restrictions. This comes from frustration of running up against brick walls of "no, you're not allowed to use our software for that" when I tried to use the so-called free software.
NegativeK 13y ago
This is discussed frequently. The BSD license grants you the freedom to restrict the freedoms of others. The GPL license restricts your freedom to restrict the freedoms of others. > It's not right to call GPL software free, it should rather be "no cost and slightly restricted use". Is there anything that meets this definition of free? The BSD license doesn't grant this; software under it can have unlimited cost and no source code available.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

epistasis 13y ago

I wish he'd stop using the word "free" and only use "libre." The FSF and Stallman's definition of "free" (as it pertains to freedom) is not mine, and I have found few that actually agree with it. Open source's definition of freedom is far more universal, I believe. And using "libre" also gets around the "free as in pizza" distinction.

thejteam 13y ago
I don't like "free" but I wouldn't want a new term to explain to a layperson either.
- kunai 13y ago
  Libre. Liberty. Done.
  - quadrangle 13y ago
    Yeah, but remember, as long as others don't agree, it's tough. There's "free" "libre" and "open". The only answer is to say: THOSE THINGS. So, use "free/libre/open" i.e. FLO
chatman 13y ago
Open source's definition is incomplete when it comes to protecting the freedom of users. And, libre doesn't imply "free as in pizza" to me.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > And, libre doesn't imply "free as in pizza" to me. Probably because it is not suppose to....
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  That's because open source is not necessarily related to freedom. It's a purely pragmatic issue, though a core property of free software, but by itself it does not guarantee freedom. Also, free beer > free pizza.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Gratis source once you've been (legitimately) given the binaries is a core property of free software. Gratis in general is a common but incidental property of free software.
Daishiman 13y ago
That's more of a problem with the English language.
- elclanrs 13y ago
  Right, gratis = free, libre = free.

e12e 13y ago

I think the GPL is widely misunderstood by developers. The freedom the GPL is concerned with, and the reasoning behind it, is to preserve the rights and freedoms of the user. That is, when you acquire a product (for free, or for a fee) -- it seeks to make sure that you can do use that product as you wish. And that if you re-sell it, or share it, those same rights are available for the next user down the line. The GPL achieves this by bending copyright into copyleft. It is not concerned with allowing people to make money repackaging a piece of software and locking it down in various ways. So, it is all about freedoms, just maybe not the freedoms that some developers thinks it is/should be about.

epistasis 13y ago
What specific rights and freedoms does the user have with libre software that they do not with open source software?
- thristian 13y ago
  Free or "libre" software is software that obeys the Four Freedoms. Much "open source" software is also Free software, but not necessarily all of it. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but for a while Microsoft would provide source-code to the Windows NT kernel to universities and academic institutions; the source was open (for some definition of "open") but because Microsoft did not allow redistribution and modification, and only allowed the code to be used for educational purposes, it was not Free software.
- Nursie 13y ago
  Developer A writes some code. Developer B makes device-specific alterations and puts it on a device. Consumer C buys the device. If A GPL'd the software then C has a right to the exact code running on their device. This is not the case under other licenses that people like to call "more free".
- Decade 13y ago
  Let's have a specific example. The Linux kernel. Technically, it's GPLv2, but in practice the copyright holders don't bother to enforce the copyright license. Linus Torvalds is the acme of "pragmatic" open source. What right is missing: The ability to compile a new kernel for an embedded device. Qualcomm, Marvell, Broadcom, ARM, NVIDIA, and many others. They provide binary device drivers that work only with specific versions of the Linux kernel. Consequently, my home router has more computing power than my desktop 20 years ago, but my desktop was free to run any software and my router is just a router. Also, Android devices almost never update, for the same reason.

thejteam 13y ago

There is certainly a need for a radically simplified version of the GPL. The average person does not understand all of the ramifications of the license. Here's a scenario that hinders the distribution of open source software: Teacher: Here, children. Here is some free software. Parent of child: Thanks. It is GPL. Give me the source. Teacher: Huh? There needs to be a license that is similar to the GPL in scope but is readable and clear about what is required to a person who has never compiled software in their life and is not a lawyer. Open source projects need to realize that not everybody is a software engineer. Not everybody is up to date on the latest terminology. If they want laypeople to download and distribute code, make it easy to get. And above all, communicate clearly in language they can understand.

thristian 13y ago
Have you read the GPL? It uses fairly simple language, no legal jargon, and it's a lot shorter than some EULAs I've seen. I imagine a lot of people just mentally file it under 'legalese' and skip over it, but even a "simplified" GPL wouldn't prevent that.
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  There are and continue to be wild disagreements over GPL and what it means. Is linking against a DLL considered a derived work? It depends on who you ask! Stallman thinks yes. Others think no.
  - thristian 13y ago
    Isn't that a vagueness in copyright law itself? You could avoid the vagueness by making the GPL stricter and more explicit, but that seems like the direct opposite of 'simplification'.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    It tends to be considered so by the people that write the GPL'd software. That's why the LGPL exists. If you're looking for a way to use someone's software components against their wishes, and just looking for a legal way of doing so, then you may be right. If you actually want to respect the wishes of the author OTOH...

tjr 13y ago

Sure: the GPL does not grant you the freedom to alter the license under which the software was given to you, nor to mix the software with other software under a conflicting license. To do either of those things would work against the freedoms that the GPL explicitly promotes. Other licenses, such as the X11 license, let you embed the software into proprietary projects. So in that sense you are granted more freedom. But doing that denies other freedoms that the GPL explicitly grants.

dllthomas 13y ago
You can absolutely mix GPL software and incompatably licensed software. What you cannot do is redistribute that combination.
- tjr 13y ago
  Thank you! I was referring to redistribution, but was unclear.

belorn 13y ago

The author of the above comment do not understand software licenses, and the whole commented is constructed around that confusion. > You're not allowed to ... or remove the license agreement No license agreement allows you as a recipient to ignore the license. At best, you can redistribute a "all right reserved" copyrighted work, while you yourself follows the license. At no point can you actually remove a license and then use it in a way that require authorized permission under copyright law. You would also have a hard time finding such copyright license. Both BSD and MIT requires that the license are kept in all copies. Removing the license there would be as illegal as it would be to remove the GPL. Simply put: if you get sued for copyright violation, its the license that the accused must raise in defense. Removing it is guarantied to be illegal except in rare situations such as wtfpl.

itchitawa 13y ago
I just discovered this is a popular political debate so shouldn't be in HN. I do understand how licenses work, just take issue with using the word "free" for something that has artificial restrictions. This comes from frustration of running up against brick walls of "no, you're not allowed to use our software for that" when I tried to use the so-called free software.

NegativeK 13y ago

This is discussed frequently. The BSD license grants you the freedom to restrict the freedoms of others. The GPL license restricts your freedom to restrict the freedoms of others. > It's not right to call GPL software free, it should rather be "no cost and slightly restricted use". Is there anything that meets this definition of free? The BSD license doesn't grant this; software under it can have unlimited cost and no source code available.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]