5 ms·

If GPL people are concerned about restrictive licenses why not use BSD or MIT which contain fewer restrictions?

by fleitz 13y ago

chc 13y ago
What the GPL restricts is restrictions. Going with BSD allows more restrictions to be placed on the software by others. It's similar in essence to forbidding slavery — some rhetorician might suggest that it abridges people's freedom to own each other, but the actual intent is to preserve a greater amount of freedom.
- gaius 13y ago
  But the underlying principle that all parties would have to agree on is that there are these things called "laws".
  - belorn 13y ago
    The underlying principle has been given a name by philosophers and political scientists. Its called "Negative Right". Taken from wikipedia: Negative rights are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right as an entitlement to "non-interference" such as a right against being assaulted. Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus, a fair trial, and freedom from slavery. for more, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
- fleitz 13y ago
  I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software is compared to abolishing slavery. I'm pretty sure the TSA also thinks its restrictions on air travel lead to greater freedom of mobility.
  - arca_vorago 13y ago
    "I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software" No! The GPL and it's ilk are not and never have been about restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software. When are people going to get that? The source code has to be supplied. You can still charge for access to it. I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as long as when a customer buys it, I give them access to the source, I'm still GPL compliant. Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around.
    - chc 13y ago
      > Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around. You're glazing over a lot of practical issues. For example, if you charge money for a product you are distributing under the GPL, once it has been purchased once, nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse. Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? Because I really can't. In practice, companies that make money from GPL software almost never make their money from selling the software.
      - arca_vorago 13y ago
        "Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? " Actually yes, I can think of a quite a few. Redhat is a good example of a huge industry built around GPL software. That really isn't the point though, and allow me to summarize your misconception. "nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse." Explain to me how this applies to GPL and not the BSD, (I doubt you can) and you will see how (at least this particular) argument is flawed.
agsamek 13y ago
I think this is a completely valid question in the context of GPL (quite off-topic, but invoked in the parent thread) and I do not understand why this was downvoted. GPL might have been about freedom at the time when it was introduced. Nowadays I and most businesses are scanning every piece of software for GPL in order to verify whether it is free.
- watwut 13y ago
  GPL software was not created in order to provide free labor and tools to all businesses in the world. If you do not want distribute your software as GPL, scanning every piece of software for GPL is exactly what is expected from you. I'm not saying that I would not contribute it non-GPL software. I do not mind companies closing their products. However, GPL people do mind companies closing their software. So, those companies not using GPL libraries, no matter how useful is perfectly OK result.

If GPL people are concerned about restrictive licenses why not use BSD or MIT which contain fewer restrictions?

by fleitz 13y ago

If GPL people are concerned about restrictive licenses why not use BSD or MIT which contain fewer restrictions?

chc 13y ago

What the GPL restricts is restrictions. Going with BSD allows more restrictions to be placed on the software by others. It's similar in essence to forbidding slavery — some rhetorician might suggest that it abridges people's freedom to own each other, but the actual intent is to preserve a greater amount of freedom.

gaius 13y ago
But the underlying principle that all parties would have to agree on is that there are these things called "laws".
- belorn 13y ago
  The underlying principle has been given a name by philosophers and political scientists. Its called "Negative Right". Taken from wikipedia: Negative rights are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right as an entitlement to "non-interference" such as a right against being assaulted. Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus, a fair trial, and freedom from slavery. for more, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
fleitz 13y ago
I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software is compared to abolishing slavery. I'm pretty sure the TSA also thinks its restrictions on air travel lead to greater freedom of mobility.
- arca_vorago 13y ago
  "I find it funny that restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software" No! The GPL and it's ilk are not and never have been about restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software. When are people going to get that? The source code has to be supplied. You can still charge for access to it. I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as long as when a customer buys it, I give them access to the source, I'm still GPL compliant. Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around.
  - chc 13y ago
    > Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around. You're glazing over a lot of practical issues. For example, if you charge money for a product you are distributing under the GPL, once it has been purchased once, nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse. Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? Because I really can't. In practice, companies that make money from GPL software almost never make their money from selling the software.
    - arca_vorago 13y ago
      "Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? " Actually yes, I can think of a quite a few. Redhat is a good example of a huge industry built around GPL software. That really isn't the point though, and allow me to summarize your misconception. "nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse." Explain to me how this applies to GPL and not the BSD, (I doubt you can) and you will see how (at least this particular) argument is flawed.

agsamek 13y ago

I think this is a completely valid question in the context of GPL (quite off-topic, but invoked in the parent thread) and I do not understand why this was downvoted. GPL might have been about freedom at the time when it was introduced. Nowadays I and most businesses are scanning every piece of software for GPL in order to verify whether it is free.

watwut 13y ago
GPL software was not created in order to provide free labor and tools to all businesses in the world. If you do not want distribute your software as GPL, scanning every piece of software for GPL is exactly what is expected from you. I'm not saying that I would not contribute it non-GPL software. I do not mind companies closing their products. However, GPL people do mind companies closing their software. So, those companies not using GPL libraries, no matter how useful is perfectly OK result.