12 ms·

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 t

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
  Yup. . . and as others have pointed out, there are some very good reasons why it makes sense to prefer the GPL over a more permissive license for a product light Light Table. I've got no argument there; if I were in the same circumstances I might have made the same choice. What I'm bristling at is the line of thinking that says that I would somehow be harmed if Light Table's maintainers had chosen a license that permits proprietary derivatives.
foxhill 13y ago
ok, so perhaps you exercise some restraint with copyright. you're making the world an easier place to live in. however, you are not representative of the commercial world. patents/copyright mean money, and no business with rational business leadership would choose not to shutdown competitors with patent disputes if possible, let alone not licence code in a restrictive fashion (i.e closed source, not free, etc.) regardless, this isn't just about copyright and patent disputes. it's about trust. i'm using a computer right now, and i don't trust the hardware, or even the software i'm using. i have no way of verifying that it's doing exactly what it says it's doing, and that it's not doing something that i don't want it to. which is weird, because.. i own it. i get into my car, and there are (probably) hundreds and thousands of lines of code between me and the wheels. but i don't know what's going on really? maybe there's something wrong with ECU's management of fuel injection. maybe there's a bug in the ABS controller. i can't trust any of the electronic equipment that i use. that's.. pretty bizarre, given that i am employed to work on these things, don't you think? so what purpose does the viral clause in the GPL have? it's simple really - lets say i program.. a home automation system (one that's not just.. terrible). i've got a few raspberry pi's, some arduinos, all talking over wifi/ethernet. control of things like lights, heating, doors, the whole thing. i've got an app i run on my phone, it's looking pretty slick. the source is a bit of a hack, probable buffer over/underflows, no comments, i only have the app on my iphone.. it's not perfect, but it works. and if it doesn't, i can fix it. the literal last thing i'm thinking about (i almost forgot to write about it, in fact), is the code licence. but fuck it, i can't be bothered. MIT looks simple enough, why the hell not. a few months later, PicoHard (c) release something amazingly similar, but with more functionality. they have android apps, more polish, they have their own custom wall sockets that switch on and off the power.. you get the idea. it's on sale for a few thousand dollars. but hey, i don't care, i can do all that if i want to. i haven't lost anything, and this company hasn't infringed on my rights. thousands of people have installed this system now, but nobody (except maybe the original author) knows really anything about how it works. june 2013 happens, and suddenly there is a guy on TV saying that the government have almost certainly got backdoors in my software. now thousands of peoples rights are infringed. so, no, please, may you STOP IT. (the story was, of course, entirely fictional)
superuser2 13y ago
You made a false claim. Your choice of a closed-source license means no one can make derivatives of your work; if you had chosen a permissive license, your users would have greater software freedom. Hence, someone's software freedom is impeded. Your ad hominem, however, is misdirected. I too oppose FSF's mission to value our craft at $0.00/hour. People have the right to compensation when others enjoy their creative output and if that impedes software freedom, so be it. Software freedom is a good thing but by no means an inalienable right. I support open source because it's in our collective interests to subsidize the creation of freely available and high-quality platforms/tools with our earnings from proprietary software. I don't think we'd have those earnings without proprietary software, though. Some people point to the Red Hat model. But most people don't need those kinds of guarantees. Third parties (i.e. every system administrator who's ever been responsible for at least one CentOS box and is not a Red Hat employee) can provide good enough support for drastically cheaper because they don't have the extra costs associated with developing the product. Without proprietary software, it is in no one's interest to make software. (Well, maybe for personal amusement.) Not even line-of-business software, because you're just handing your competitors the ability to undercut your prices and push you out of the market (similar productivity boost, lower costs than you).
- gress 13y ago
  > someone's software freedom is impeded Nobody's freedom is impeded. They didn't have the freedom to modify the code in the first place, since they didn't have the source code. Nothing they could do before has been taken away. It's really intellectually dishonest to use this freedom and morality rhetoric when you're actually talking about compelling people to give away something they have created. Not that I think it's conceptually a bad idea. I see nothing wrong with the idea of the GPL as a concept. A contract that says 'if you use this software, you agree to also give away any code you base on it' seems fine. But I see no reason not to just call it 'permanenrly malleable' software or something like that. It's the faulty rhetoric around freedom that is presented as a moral crusade that is a problem.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    Someone switches to your product, or a new user chooses your product over the open-source alternative. The proportion of people who can modify their software decreases. That is a decrease in software freedom. Not necessarily a bad thing (your product might be legitimately better), but it is a decrease in software freedom.
nknighthb 13y ago
> Speaking as a user of commercial software I'm both a user and a developer of commercial software, and I would like for you to apologize for speaking as if you represented anyone other than yourself in this ignorant and hateful screed.

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
Yup. . . and as others have pointed out, there are some very good reasons why it makes sense to prefer the GPL over a more permissive license for a product light Light Table. I've got no argument there; if I were in the same circumstances I might have made the same choice. What I'm bristling at is the line of thinking that says that I would somehow be harmed if Light Table's maintainers had chosen a license that permits proprietary derivatives.

foxhill 13y ago

ok, so perhaps you exercise some restraint with copyright. you're making the world an easier place to live in. however, you are not representative of the commercial world. patents/copyright mean money, and no business with rational business leadership would choose not to shutdown competitors with patent disputes if possible, let alone not licence code in a restrictive fashion (i.e closed source, not free, etc.) regardless, this isn't just about copyright and patent disputes. it's about trust. i'm using a computer right now, and i don't trust the hardware, or even the software i'm using. i have no way of verifying that it's doing exactly what it says it's doing, and that it's not doing something that i don't want it to. which is weird, because.. i own it. i get into my car, and there are (probably) hundreds and thousands of lines of code between me and the wheels. but i don't know what's going on really? maybe there's something wrong with ECU's management of fuel injection. maybe there's a bug in the ABS controller. i can't trust any of the electronic equipment that i use. that's.. pretty bizarre, given that i am employed to work on these things, don't you think? so what purpose does the viral clause in the GPL have? it's simple really - lets say i program.. a home automation system (one that's not just.. terrible). i've got a few raspberry pi's, some arduinos, all talking over wifi/ethernet. control of things like lights, heating, doors, the whole thing. i've got an app i run on my phone, it's looking pretty slick. the source is a bit of a hack, probable buffer over/underflows, no comments, i only have the app on my iphone.. it's not perfect, but it works. and if it doesn't, i can fix it. the literal last thing i'm thinking about (i almost forgot to write about it, in fact), is the code licence. but fuck it, i can't be bothered. MIT looks simple enough, why the hell not. a few months later, PicoHard (c) release something amazingly similar, but with more functionality. they have android apps, more polish, they have their own custom wall sockets that switch on and off the power.. you get the idea. it's on sale for a few thousand dollars. but hey, i don't care, i can do all that if i want to. i haven't lost anything, and this company hasn't infringed on my rights. thousands of people have installed this system now, but nobody (except maybe the original author) knows really anything about how it works. june 2013 happens, and suddenly there is a guy on TV saying that the government have almost certainly got backdoors in my software. now thousands of peoples rights are infringed. so, no, please, may you STOP IT. (the story was, of course, entirely fictional)

superuser2 13y ago

You made a false claim. Your choice of a closed-source license means no one can make derivatives of your work; if you had chosen a permissive license, your users would have greater software freedom. Hence, someone's software freedom is impeded. Your ad hominem, however, is misdirected. I too oppose FSF's mission to value our craft at $0.00/hour. People have the right to compensation when others enjoy their creative output and if that impedes software freedom, so be it. Software freedom is a good thing but by no means an inalienable right. I support open source because it's in our collective interests to subsidize the creation of freely available and high-quality platforms/tools with our earnings from proprietary software. I don't think we'd have those earnings without proprietary software, though. Some people point to the Red Hat model. But most people don't need those kinds of guarantees. Third parties (i.e. every system administrator who's ever been responsible for at least one CentOS box and is not a Red Hat employee) can provide good enough support for drastically cheaper because they don't have the extra costs associated with developing the product. Without proprietary software, it is in no one's interest to make software. (Well, maybe for personal amusement.) Not even line-of-business software, because you're just handing your competitors the ability to undercut your prices and push you out of the market (similar productivity boost, lower costs than you).

gress 13y ago
> someone's software freedom is impeded Nobody's freedom is impeded. They didn't have the freedom to modify the code in the first place, since they didn't have the source code. Nothing they could do before has been taken away. It's really intellectually dishonest to use this freedom and morality rhetoric when you're actually talking about compelling people to give away something they have created. Not that I think it's conceptually a bad idea. I see nothing wrong with the idea of the GPL as a concept. A contract that says 'if you use this software, you agree to also give away any code you base on it' seems fine. But I see no reason not to just call it 'permanenrly malleable' software or something like that. It's the faulty rhetoric around freedom that is presented as a moral crusade that is a problem.
- superuser2 13y ago
  Someone switches to your product, or a new user chooses your product over the open-source alternative. The proportion of people who can modify their software decreases. That is a decrease in software freedom. Not necessarily a bad thing (your product might be legitimately better), but it is a decrease in software freedom.

nknighthb 13y ago

> Speaking as a user of commercial software I'm both a user and a developer of commercial software, and I would like for you to apologize for speaking as if you represented anyone other than yourself in this ignorant and hateful screed.