3 ms·

Free Software and GPL is about users. It puts users first and then developers. FSF considers that freedom is a social problem than a technical problem. Open So

by vu3rdd 13y ago

Free Software and GPL is about users. It puts users first and then developers. FSF considers that freedom is a social problem than a technical problem. Open Source is about businesses and the technical merits of the software being freely available. IMHO, BSD, MIT/X licenses put developers and their rights first and only then the users. That's my view of the Free/Open source licensing landscape.

jordigh 13y ago
This seems like a very fair summary.
clarry 13y ago
I do not like the user/developer distinction. The license deals primarily with copying, it is a copyright issue after all. If you are a user and do not copy the code, the license does not concern you. If you copy the code, the license binds and obligates you in the same way it binds and obligates developers who copy the code; there is no distinction. Developers often are users too. And many of the GPLs goals seem to have everything to do with enabling the user to become a developer (or hire one, same difference).
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "If you copy the code, the license binds and obligates you in the same way it binds and obligates developers who copy the code; there is no distinction." The distinction arises because of differences in motivation. If I distribute the work, I'm obligated to provide the source. If I have made no changes, who cares? If I was able to refuse to provide the source of unmodified builds, users who wanted the source could just get it from upstream. It's developers who want to make changes and refuse to provide sources that wind up feeling like the GPL is meaningfully restricting them. "Developers often are users too. And many of the GPLs goals seem to have everything to do with enabling the user to become a developer (or hire one, same difference)." Very true. That's a freedom it's important to preserve.
dwc 13y ago
I have heard that before but I've never understood it. As a user of software myself, I can't think of cases where BSD-style licenses have let me down rights-wise, freedom-wise, etc.
einhverfr 13y ago
First, I don't like the MIT license because it allows license changes without additional code contributions. The BSD license doesn't grant sublicensing rights and therefore only allows restrictions to be placed on new code contributions. Also IMO the only way to read the BSD license and GPL v3 as compatible are to read section 7(b) in the GPL v3 as allowing additional copyright license/permission grants beyond the additional permissions section elsewhere. I.e. one must read 7(b) as allowing a legal notice that the author grants rights in a non-removable fashion from his or her contributions (narrowly scoped). Otherwise, the BSD license is GPLv3-incompatible. If freedom is economically valuable, then folks who proprietize BSD-licensed software can never outrun the community over the long-run, and it also follows that, equally in the long run, more restrictive licenses will have to fall in favor of less restrictive ones.

by vu3rdd 13y ago

jordigh 13y ago

This seems like a very fair summary.

clarry 13y ago

I do not like the user/developer distinction. The license deals primarily with copying, it is a copyright issue after all. If you are a user and do not copy the code, the license does not concern you. If you copy the code, the license binds and obligates you in the same way it binds and obligates developers who copy the code; there is no distinction. Developers often are users too. And many of the GPLs goals seem to have everything to do with enabling the user to become a developer (or hire one, same difference).

dllthomas 13y ago
"If you copy the code, the license binds and obligates you in the same way it binds and obligates developers who copy the code; there is no distinction." The distinction arises because of differences in motivation. If I distribute the work, I'm obligated to provide the source. If I have made no changes, who cares? If I was able to refuse to provide the source of unmodified builds, users who wanted the source could just get it from upstream. It's developers who want to make changes and refuse to provide sources that wind up feeling like the GPL is meaningfully restricting them. "Developers often are users too. And many of the GPLs goals seem to have everything to do with enabling the user to become a developer (or hire one, same difference)." Very true. That's a freedom it's important to preserve.

dwc 13y ago

I have heard that before but I've never understood it. As a user of software myself, I can't think of cases where BSD-style licenses have let me down rights-wise, freedom-wise, etc.

einhverfr 13y ago

First, I don't like the MIT license because it allows license changes without additional code contributions. The BSD license doesn't grant sublicensing rights and therefore only allows restrictions to be placed on new code contributions. Also IMO the only way to read the BSD license and GPL v3 as compatible are to read section 7(b) in the GPL v3 as allowing additional copyright license/permission grants beyond the additional permissions section elsewhere. I.e. one must read 7(b) as allowing a legal notice that the author grants rights in a non-removable fashion from his or her contributions (narrowly scoped). Otherwise, the BSD license is GPLv3-incompatible. If freedom is economically valuable, then folks who proprietize BSD-licensed software can never outrun the community over the long-run, and it also follows that, equally in the long run, more restrictive licenses will have to fall in favor of less restrictive ones.