5 ms·

I have to agree. I love free; what doesn't feel "free" to me is the GPL, since I can't use just about anything GPL in my job. My job involves creating non-fre

I have to agree. I love free; what doesn't feel "free" to me is the GPL, since I can't use just about anything GPL in my job. My job involves creating non-free software. Given the GPL's goals, it's not a surprise at all that I can't use it. But it strikes me as ironic that RMS talks about "freedom" when really he's advocating restricting your freedom to use the software. I understand it's in pursuance of a "greater goal" of Freedom to modify everything, but the problem is that, in the large, free software sucks, and I don't really want to be responsible for making it good. Sure you can come up with a dozen really great free software packages (I'm using Firefox to post here, for one, and I make builds using gcc daily and gnu make). But I can come up with a thousand that suck -- and that includes the "best" packages in a number of different categories: Image editing, document editing, development environments (Eclipse has some nice bells and whistles, but that doesn't make it not suck), 3d editing... ALMOST everything with a GUI, browsers being a huge exception. [1] Those are just the categories I've tried and tried again to make Free software work for me, because I am attracted to the ideal of working with Free software. But every time, the paid/proprietary solution has been so much better than the free solution that I've defected and paid for the proprietary version. No, I'm not going to use free software to support an ideal. I'm going to pay for software that helps me get my work done faster and better. Because at the end of the day, I appreciate good tools, not ideals. There may come a day when I try to make my own "free" software project, but if I do, it will be because I really want to make a world class tool in that category, and I feel that the free model is the best for that tool. But I will continue to choose my tools based on what they allow me to do, not their source code license, and the proprietary tools I do use offer me more advantages despite being closed source than their open source equivalents. [1] Don't bother posting arguments about this or that free software package in these categories. Unless it's brand new and awesome, in which case I might like to try it out. Regardless, one example doesn't change my overall point, and I don't want the thread to devolve into "Gimp is great!" "No it sucks!" -- "Good enough" for one person is not always going to be good enough for another.

undershirt 13y ago
It's confusing if you think about it in terms of developer freedom, which the GPL isn't written for. It's about a user's freedom to run, study, modify, and distribute software however they want. It's this seed of freedom that prevents software from controlling the users. That's what the GPL protects. So your objection to the GPL is essentially that it doesn't grant you the freedom to take away these user rights.
- gress 13y ago
  Isn't a user who modifies and distributes software otherwise known as a developer?
  - SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
    Exactly! Especially for programming tools like GCC or Clang, the end user is by definition a developer.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    No, because they might be paying someone else to do the development.
    - gress 13y ago
      So this is about protecting the rights of people rich enough to hire developers to work on bespoke projects that cannot be distributed as proprietary. I.e. Large corporations.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I am currently paying for some bespoke software development (split with two other individuals).
        gress 13y ago
        Is it under the GPL?
        dllthomas 13y ago
        AGPL, as it happens.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        While the above is the case, I'd just like to note that it misses the thrust of the subthread - my point was that it can demonstrably be affordable for other than "large corporations", which is the case regardless of the license under which I am releasing it.
dllthomas 13y ago
"I can't use just about anything GPL in my job." "I make builds using gcc daily and gnu make"
- SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
  Yes. So? Your point is? I called it out as the only thing I do use. And I may transition to Clang from gcc if a build problem I encountered with an older Clang version is fixed. That leaves gnu make. And make sucks for many, many reasons, but that's not Gnu's fault. It's just that all the other building solutions suck more.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    My point is that you do use a relatively large amount of GPL code (the gcc codebase is huge) and there are doubtless more GPL programs you can perfectly well use during development and simply choose not to. "I can't use just about anything GPL in my job" is a mischaracterization. What you can't do is incorporate GPL code in non-GPL code you are distributing (which quite probably does include most of the work you do for your job, although not necessarily testing frameworks, &c).
smithzvk 13y ago
> But it strikes me as ironic that RMS talks about "freedom" when really he's advocating restricting your freedom to use the software. It is ironic in a way, but it is only a valid criticism if you consider that you should have the freedom to restrict other peoples freedoms. This is generally considered to be immoral in modern society.
belorn 13y ago
Not an other post about what "freedom" means :(. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights and in particularly about the right to be left alone (negative rights). Freedom of speech, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery are just a few freedoms that can only be implemented by restricting others. You can't have freedom from slavery without restricting slave owners their right to enslave. Thus the term negative rights had to be made by philosophers and political scientists. The proprietary model is to trade software for money, and then threaten your customers with lawsuit if they share or modify the program. GPL provide software under the freedom from those threats, with the use of negative rights (ie, the user of the program has a right to be left alone). If you can not make software without threatening your users, don't try to start by taking GPL software.
- microtherion 13y ago
  A number of companies have been sued for using GPL software in ways incompatible with the GPL, so I don't see how the distinction you're drawing here is meaningful.
- SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
  I'm blocked from using GPL software the way I want; in that way I'm not free to use GPL software how I want. That is a "freedom," regardless of how you're trying to define the word. FSF is trying to grant one freedom by taking away another, period. Yes, it's my "freedom" to restrict how others copy my resulting software, but it's still a freedom. To claim otherwise is pedantic at best. >If you can not make software without threatening your users, don't try to start by taking GPL software. Umm...other than using it as it's designed and permitted (e.g., gcc), I don't. Any code libraries that are GPL (or even LGPL, except under specific circumstances) are dead to me. I'm annoyed when my time is wasted coming across one on a search. I would even bail on GCC for the superior Clang but I have one package (of many) that needs GCC to build in my current project for a client. Almost all GPL code is likely to lose support compared to any BSD/MIT competition in the long term (except possibly for those packages used in server development, since they can be used commercially without being distributed, circumventing the intent of the GPL). Most non-server developers do their best to avoid linking to GPLed software because they're working on proprietary software. RMS alludes to this in the article: "The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community..." The superior network effects of BSD/MIT-licensed libraries means that those libraries will get more developers, who will fix more bugs and more features, which will then attract more developers, etc. (Not to mention the fact that LLVM is just more awesome than GCC). As a developer I hate to have to rewrite code. Yet I'm forced to if the only code available is GPL; I can't change my business goals or those of my clients for the sake of a goal that's never going to be achieved. Asking me to is naive. The financial reality is that (most of the time) to make money writing software, you need to sell it (and therefore restrict the rights of those you sell it to). The first 80% of a project is the most fun and satisfying; most open source projects rarely make it beyond that first 80% (if they make it that far) [1]. Companies that make money writing software will pay developers to complete the libraries they're using. As those BSD/MIT libraries get better, the GPLed competition will fall behind. [1] Notable exceptions include the abovementioned server software category, where commercial/proprietary developers can use (and therefore will likely contribute to) GPLed code, and projects that have enough income to support full-time commercial development.
nly 13y ago
> My job involves creating non-free software. > But it strikes me as ironic that RMS talks about "freedom" when really he's advocating restricting your freedom to use the software. 1. The GPL isn't restricting your freedom, your employer is. You are working under contract terms and policy selected by your employer. Your preferences aren't relevant. 2. The GPL isn't restricting your employer from using the software, just distributing proprietary add-ons or integrating parts of it in to their commercial products. They can still use it to compile and ship software, for free, giving nothing in return... that's still a pretty sweet deal when you go and look at the competition. Microsoft will charge you for the privilege of using their inferior compiler (full VS suite aside). What kind of mindset says "Oh boy! B is giving me more stuff for free than A was, I'm going to go shit on A and make demands!"
- gress 13y ago
  The GPL is absolutely restricting what people do with software. To say otherwise is a lie.
  - belorn 13y ago
    No. Users of GPL software are under the right to be left alone if they want to modify or share the program. The developer who want to add restrictions on the program is the one who infringe on the users right.
    - gress 13y ago
      This is true but irrelevant because nobody is talking about adding restrictions to existing GPL software.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        There is nothing you can do with non-GPL software that you cannot do with GPL software that does not involve distributing code with more restrictions.

undershirt 13y ago

It's confusing if you think about it in terms of developer freedom, which the GPL isn't written for. It's about a user's freedom to run, study, modify, and distribute software however they want. It's this seed of freedom that prevents software from controlling the users. That's what the GPL protects. So your objection to the GPL is essentially that it doesn't grant you the freedom to take away these user rights.

gress 13y ago
Isn't a user who modifies and distributes software otherwise known as a developer?
- SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
  Exactly! Especially for programming tools like GCC or Clang, the end user is by definition a developer.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  No, because they might be paying someone else to do the development.
  - gress 13y ago
    So this is about protecting the rights of people rich enough to hire developers to work on bespoke projects that cannot be distributed as proprietary. I.e. Large corporations.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I am currently paying for some bespoke software development (split with two other individuals).
      - gress 13y ago
        Is it under the GPL?
        dllthomas 13y ago
        AGPL, as it happens.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        While the above is the case, I'd just like to note that it misses the thrust of the subthread - my point was that it can demonstrably be affordable for other than "large corporations", which is the case regardless of the license under which I am releasing it.

dllthomas 13y ago

"I can't use just about anything GPL in my job." "I make builds using gcc daily and gnu make"

SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
Yes. So? Your point is? I called it out as the only thing I do use. And I may transition to Clang from gcc if a build problem I encountered with an older Clang version is fixed. That leaves gnu make. And make sucks for many, many reasons, but that's not Gnu's fault. It's just that all the other building solutions suck more.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  My point is that you do use a relatively large amount of GPL code (the gcc codebase is huge) and there are doubtless more GPL programs you can perfectly well use during development and simply choose not to. "I can't use just about anything GPL in my job" is a mischaracterization. What you can't do is incorporate GPL code in non-GPL code you are distributing (which quite probably does include most of the work you do for your job, although not necessarily testing frameworks, &c).

smithzvk 13y ago

> But it strikes me as ironic that RMS talks about "freedom" when really he's advocating restricting your freedom to use the software. It is ironic in a way, but it is only a valid criticism if you consider that you should have the freedom to restrict other peoples freedoms. This is generally considered to be immoral in modern society.

belorn 13y ago

Not an other post about what "freedom" means :(. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights and in particularly about the right to be left alone (negative rights). Freedom of speech, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery are just a few freedoms that can only be implemented by restricting others. You can't have freedom from slavery without restricting slave owners their right to enslave. Thus the term negative rights had to be made by philosophers and political scientists. The proprietary model is to trade software for money, and then threaten your customers with lawsuit if they share or modify the program. GPL provide software under the freedom from those threats, with the use of negative rights (ie, the user of the program has a right to be left alone). If you can not make software without threatening your users, don't try to start by taking GPL software.

microtherion 13y ago
A number of companies have been sued for using GPL software in ways incompatible with the GPL, so I don't see how the distinction you're drawing here is meaningful.
SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
I'm blocked from using GPL software the way I want; in that way I'm not free to use GPL software how I want. That is a "freedom," regardless of how you're trying to define the word. FSF is trying to grant one freedom by taking away another, period. Yes, it's my "freedom" to restrict how others copy my resulting software, but it's still a freedom. To claim otherwise is pedantic at best. >If you can not make software without threatening your users, don't try to start by taking GPL software. Umm...other than using it as it's designed and permitted (e.g., gcc), I don't. Any code libraries that are GPL (or even LGPL, except under specific circumstances) are dead to me. I'm annoyed when my time is wasted coming across one on a search. I would even bail on GCC for the superior Clang but I have one package (of many) that needs GCC to build in my current project for a client. Almost all GPL code is likely to lose support compared to any BSD/MIT competition in the long term (except possibly for those packages used in server development, since they can be used commercially without being distributed, circumventing the intent of the GPL). Most non-server developers do their best to avoid linking to GPLed software because they're working on proprietary software. RMS alludes to this in the article: "The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community..." The superior network effects of BSD/MIT-licensed libraries means that those libraries will get more developers, who will fix more bugs and more features, which will then attract more developers, etc. (Not to mention the fact that LLVM is just more awesome than GCC). As a developer I hate to have to rewrite code. Yet I'm forced to if the only code available is GPL; I can't change my business goals or those of my clients for the sake of a goal that's never going to be achieved. Asking me to is naive. The financial reality is that (most of the time) to make money writing software, you need to sell it (and therefore restrict the rights of those you sell it to). The first 80% of a project is the most fun and satisfying; most open source projects rarely make it beyond that first 80% (if they make it that far) [1]. Companies that make money writing software will pay developers to complete the libraries they're using. As those BSD/MIT libraries get better, the GPLed competition will fall behind. [1] Notable exceptions include the abovementioned server software category, where commercial/proprietary developers can use (and therefore will likely contribute to) GPLed code, and projects that have enough income to support full-time commercial development.

nly 13y ago

> My job involves creating non-free software. > But it strikes me as ironic that RMS talks about "freedom" when really he's advocating restricting your freedom to use the software. 1. The GPL isn't restricting your freedom, your employer is. You are working under contract terms and policy selected by your employer. Your preferences aren't relevant. 2. The GPL isn't restricting your employer from using the software, just distributing proprietary add-ons or integrating parts of it in to their commercial products. They can still use it to compile and ship software, for free, giving nothing in return... that's still a pretty sweet deal when you go and look at the competition. Microsoft will charge you for the privilege of using their inferior compiler (full VS suite aside). What kind of mindset says "Oh boy! B is giving me more stuff for free than A was, I'm going to go shit on A and make demands!"

gress 13y ago
The GPL is absolutely restricting what people do with software. To say otherwise is a lie.
- belorn 13y ago
  No. Users of GPL software are under the right to be left alone if they want to modify or share the program. The developer who want to add restrictions on the program is the one who infringe on the users right.
  - gress 13y ago
    This is true but irrelevant because nobody is talking about adding restrictions to existing GPL software.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      There is nothing you can do with non-GPL software that you cannot do with GPL software that does not involve distributing code with more restrictions.