8 ms·

Not the OP, but: the GPL is more restrictive, in that you are not free to reduce the software freedom of some other person (say, by turning it into a proprietar

Not the OP, but: the GPL is more restrictive, in that you are not free to reduce the software freedom of some other person (say, by turning it into a proprietary product). This is the perspective that considers GPL more 'free': though the software itself is more restricted, the freedom of all of the users of the software is protected. Not everyone agrees with this position (I also am not interested in arguing about it) but this is my explanation of this point of view.

fotbr 13y ago
That's not accurate, since making a proprietary fork of, say, a BSD project, does not deprive anyone of the original project.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Not the OP, but: the GPL is more restrictive, in that you are not free to reduce the software freedom of some other person (say, by turning it into a proprietary product). No one's software freedom is reduced if I release a closed source derivative of a permissively-licensed open source product. All the rights that existed to the originally permissively-licensed product are intact.
- superuser2 13y ago
  Your users can't modify (and must pay for) your derivative.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Your users can't modify (and must pay for) your derivative. Which doesn't reduce their freedom, since they couldn't modify it -- or have the choice to pay for it and use it -- before I made the proprietary derivative. The only "reduction in freedom" is based on the assumption that I would have made and shared a Free derivative if I did not have the choice to distribute a proprietary one, rather than either not making a derivative, or making a derivative for my own use and not providing it to others.
    - superuser2 13y ago
      If you make a superior, closed-source derivative and users switch to it (or new users choose it instead), the proportion of people in the world who have the ability to modify the software they're using is smaller because of you. That is a reduction in software freedom. I'm perfectly okay with this. The abysmal UX of desktop linux is proof that profit motive is necessary to drive the development of high-quality end user software when that development is difficult and/or not sexy. But the only assumption required is that someone uses your product instead of the free alternative. He might have higher quality software, but he does have less software freedom.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > But the only assumption required is that someone uses your product instead of the free alternative. He might have higher quality software, but he does have less software freedom. No, he has the same software freedom -- he has the freedom to choose to use and/or modify the free version and any free derivatives people have chosen to make, and the freedom to choose to use the non-free derivative, with perhaps less freedom to modify it. If anything, he has less freedom when the creation of non-free derivatives is prohibited.
        superuser2 13y ago
        Once he becomes locked in to the non-free platform, his is not free to modify the platform he relies on and is instead required to migrate to a completely different platform in order to make (potentially small) modifications. By this logic, OSX is free software because I have the freedom to choose Windows instead. I'm not advocating for the prohibition of non-free derivatives, but the position that adoption of propriety software doesn't reduce software freedom is ridiculous.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        You "by this logic..." is wrong because the post you are responding to doesn't make any argument about what is a piece of "free software", it discusses what the effects on software freedom are of the exercise of rights under particular free software licenses. Freedom is the power to make choices rather than suffer external dictates. If a particular piece of free software exists, the existence of non-free derivatives doesn't reduce anyone's freedom, as they are free to choose the free software.
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    Speaking as a user of commercial software, and speaking as someone who prefers to enforce no copyright whatsoever over the code that he writes: STOP IT. Stop this condescending, paternalistic treating me like an imbecile who can't make informed decisions about what kind of software to use. Stop acting like you can decide for me what rights I do and do not wish to exercise. Stop acting like the freedoms I want to have, including the freedom to enter into a lawful contract with a provider of proprietary software, don't count because they don't correspond with your values. Stop preaching that my entire system for deciding what software I do and do not want to install on my own computer is wrong because it doesn't match up with your ideology. Just stop being such a @$%^! ideologically-motivated authoritarian. And most of all, stop pretending that your authoritarianism is somehow defending my liberties. I've got no problem with the GPL. If you want to maintain some sort of legal control over how others are allowed to use intellectual property that you create, you've every right to do so. That goes for releasing the source code with limitations on incorporating it into proprietary software every bit as much as it does for keeping it all proprietary in the first place. What I do have a problem with is you trying to tell me that I'm doing something wrong by choosing to be less controlling about the code I create. And what I have a problem with is you trying to tell me that my choice to place no restrictions whatsoever on what people do with the code I share is somehow stomping on somebody's rights. That includes allowing third parties to incorporate it into proprietary software. If you're uninterested in using that proprietary software, fine, it makes no difference to you whether the software existed or not. OTOH, people who are willing to pay for a proprietary modification might benefit from one existing, and in that case, more power to them - I don't care, and I don't see why 4th parties who don't have any basis for claiming ownership of the software should care.
    - tracker1 13y ago
      And the author of that software doesn't need to use software that is GPL if they want to create a commercial product... they can use more permissive software (MIT etc), license commercial libraries, or write their own.
      - bunderbunder 13y ago
- belorn 13y ago
  > No one's software freedom is reduced if I release a closed source derivative of a permissively-licensed open source product So no ones freedom is reduced if you get the power to sue anyone who modify or share the derivative product? Is this the statement being made?

fotbr 13y ago

That's not accurate, since making a proprietary fork of, say, a BSD project, does not deprive anyone of the original project.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Not the OP, but: the GPL is more restrictive, in that you are not free to reduce the software freedom of some other person (say, by turning it into a proprietary product). No one's software freedom is reduced if I release a closed source derivative of a permissively-licensed open source product. All the rights that existed to the originally permissively-licensed product are intact.

superuser2 13y ago
Your users can't modify (and must pay for) your derivative.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Your users can't modify (and must pay for) your derivative. Which doesn't reduce their freedom, since they couldn't modify it -- or have the choice to pay for it and use it -- before I made the proprietary derivative. The only "reduction in freedom" is based on the assumption that I would have made and shared a Free derivative if I did not have the choice to distribute a proprietary one, rather than either not making a derivative, or making a derivative for my own use and not providing it to others.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    If you make a superior, closed-source derivative and users switch to it (or new users choose it instead), the proportion of people in the world who have the ability to modify the software they're using is smaller because of you. That is a reduction in software freedom. I'm perfectly okay with this. The abysmal UX of desktop linux is proof that profit motive is necessary to drive the development of high-quality end user software when that development is difficult and/or not sexy. But the only assumption required is that someone uses your product instead of the free alternative. He might have higher quality software, but he does have less software freedom.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > But the only assumption required is that someone uses your product instead of the free alternative. He might have higher quality software, but he does have less software freedom. No, he has the same software freedom -- he has the freedom to choose to use and/or modify the free version and any free derivatives people have chosen to make, and the freedom to choose to use the non-free derivative, with perhaps less freedom to modify it. If anything, he has less freedom when the creation of non-free derivatives is prohibited.
      - superuser2 13y ago
        Once he becomes locked in to the non-free platform, his is not free to modify the platform he relies on and is instead required to migrate to a completely different platform in order to make (potentially small) modifications. By this logic, OSX is free software because I have the freedom to choose Windows instead. I'm not advocating for the prohibition of non-free derivatives, but the position that adoption of propriety software doesn't reduce software freedom is ridiculous.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        You "by this logic..." is wrong because the post you are responding to doesn't make any argument about what is a piece of "free software", it discusses what the effects on software freedom are of the exercise of rights under particular free software licenses. Freedom is the power to make choices rather than suffer external dictates. If a particular piece of free software exists, the existence of non-free derivatives doesn't reduce anyone's freedom, as they are free to choose the free software.
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  Speaking as a user of commercial software, and speaking as someone who prefers to enforce no copyright whatsoever over the code that he writes: STOP IT. Stop this condescending, paternalistic treating me like an imbecile who can't make informed decisions about what kind of software to use. Stop acting like you can decide for me what rights I do and do not wish to exercise. Stop acting like the freedoms I want to have, including the freedom to enter into a lawful contract with a provider of proprietary software, don't count because they don't correspond with your values. Stop preaching that my entire system for deciding what software I do and do not want to install on my own computer is wrong because it doesn't match up with your ideology. Just stop being such a @$%^! ideologically-motivated authoritarian. And most of all, stop pretending that your authoritarianism is somehow defending my liberties. I've got no problem with the GPL. If you want to maintain some sort of legal control over how others are allowed to use intellectual property that you create, you've every right to do so. That goes for releasing the source code with limitations on incorporating it into proprietary software every bit as much as it does for keeping it all proprietary in the first place. What I do have a problem with is you trying to tell me that I'm doing something wrong by choosing to be less controlling about the code I create. And what I have a problem with is you trying to tell me that my choice to place no restrictions whatsoever on what people do with the code I share is somehow stomping on somebody's rights. That includes allowing third parties to incorporate it into proprietary software. If you're uninterested in using that proprietary software, fine, it makes no difference to you whether the software existed or not. OTOH, people who are willing to pay for a proprietary modification might benefit from one existing, and in that case, more power to them - I don't care, and I don't see why 4th parties who don't have any basis for claiming ownership of the software should care.
  - tracker1 13y ago
    And the author of that software doesn't need to use software that is GPL if they want to create a commercial product... they can use more permissive software (MIT etc), license commercial libraries, or write their own.
    - bunderbunder 13y ago
belorn 13y ago
> No one's software freedom is reduced if I release a closed source derivative of a permissively-licensed open source product So no ones freedom is reduced if you get the power to sue anyone who modify or share the derivative product? Is this the statement being made?