3 ms·
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 t
by 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.