6 ms·

>Yes, giving users even a smidgen of freedom like the GPL does is harmful The point is that it does not give them enough freedom. Notice how "public domain" i

by copergi 12y ago

>Yes, giving users even a smidgen of freedom like the GPL does is harmful The point is that it does not give them enough freedom. Notice how "public domain" is in the less harmful category? And all the licenses in that category as more free than the GPL?

monochr 12y ago
> Notice how "public domain" is in the less harmful category? And all the licenses in that category as more free than the GPL? That's a very odd definition of "free". Can you explain to me how my computing freedom is enhanced by using a binary that's licensed under the Free BSD licence without the source being released? Compared to a GPL binary where I must be supplied the code as an end user and can vet it to make sure the vendor has not put tracking software/other malicious code inside? I assume the silent downvotes mean "No".
- LnxPrgr3 12y ago
  I can see why people like the GPL, but it definitely and intentionally restricts some freedoms (such as the ability to link to non-GPL code, or make proprietary changes) so it can guard others. It's a trade-off not everyone's happy with. Here's how I look at it: say a company takes some BSD-licensed code, extensively patches it, then releases it under a proprietary license. I haven't lost any rights from this—I can still use the original code without their changes. The difference is the company isn't legally forced to grant me the same rights to their modifications. They're also able to incorporate outside code that can't be legally re-licensed under the GPL—the GPL instead forces them to find or write an alternative. It's in that sense that the GPL is less free. Its supporters argue that's a good thing; its detractors argue it's a bad thing.
  - monochr 12y ago
    Which has nothing to do with what I asked about my freedoms as a user. Developers think that licences that let them charge for binaries, restrict resales and keep competitors out are wonderful. The same way that banks think that debtor prisons were a wonderful idea and billionaires want a flat fixed dollar tax rate is the solution to every problem. There isn't much surprise there. But for the majority of the people, who do not work in the one company releasing the binary, the GPL is infinitely freer than any of the anti-user licences he's listed as "less harmful". So let me ask again: From the point of view of a user how is the MIT or BSD licence freer than the GPL?
    - LnxPrgr3 12y ago
      As a pure user (someone who isn't going to modify and redistribute the software), I see no difference in freedom between BSD and GPL licensed software—I am just as able to download, install and run FreeBSD as Ubuntu. I can even burn a stack of DVDs of either to hand out to my friends. The fact someone else can fork FreeBSD and start selling OppressionCorpBSD doesn't change this at all. Sure, I can't hand out free copies of OppressionCorpBSD, but that doesn't hinder my use of FreeBSD any more than the existence of Windows does. (And I do love my freedom to not use Windows!) Neither license prevents the existence of proprietary software, but the existence of proprietary software doesn't force me to use it. It's the modify-and-redistribute case that's interesting, which is why I focus on that. (Why would you care about having the source code at all if you don't plan to change it?) The nice thing about open source is it lets you blur the lines between user and developer—it lets you change existing software, then give that new version to anyone who wants it. Even as a mostly user sharing minor tweaks, the GPL limits my options—I can only incorporate code I can legally distribute under the GPL. That doesn't hurt me when my patch is entirely my own original code, but it does hurt me if I want to re-use code from a (4-clause) BSD-licensed project, or from any other GPL-incompatible license. The GPL envisions a world where all software is GPL'd. Simpler licenses co-exist in a world where a lot of software isn't GPL'd.
      - kemayo 12y ago
        In the defense of the original poster, he does provide a reason to want the source code without changing it: "[I] can vet it to make sure the vendor has not put tracking software/other malicious code inside". (Of course, if the vendor did that I'm sure they'd just hand me code that didn't match the malicious binary.)
        LnxPrgr3 12y ago
        True, but you can inspect BSD-licensed source just as freely as GPL'd code too. Not that that's much use against a malicious distributor, who could disguise malicious code so that it passes inspection: http://underhanded.xcott.com http://underhanded.xcott.com.
  - antocv 12y ago
    "The difference is the company isn't legally forced to grant me the same rights to their modifications. " Yes, so GPL fans go by "today me, tomorrow you" and this BSD-fans go by "freeeeedooom" but then dont really put their code in public domain - instead maintain their copyright over it - which grants them the rights to revoke or change their license at any time. BSD-license can be revoked by the copyright holder you know. So if all these BSD fans really are "freeedooom", please public domain everything.
    - LnxPrgr3 12y ago
      Can it be? Specifically, can someone release software under the BSD license, then later legally prevent others from using that version under that license? Also: "Few if any legal systems have a process for reliably donating works to the public domain. They may even prohibit any attempt by copyright owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights. An alternative is for copyright holders to issue a licence which irrevocably grants as many rights as possible to the general public, e.g., the CC0 licence from Creative Commons." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Dedicating_works_to_the_public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Dedicating_works_...)
      - mpyne 12y ago
        There's some sort of legal doctrine to the effect that you can't be punished for taking an action that someone led you to believe was authorized. This would protect you in cases where you use the licensed software when the license was still in effect. I suppose the better question is whether someone can rescind their license for their work and prevent future legal use of that software. I'd like to think that's not possible either, but I have no clue to be honest.
    - clarry 12y ago
      As per the Berne convention, some rights are inalienable. In practice this means that there are many countries where you simply cannot put your work in the public domain, or otherwise try to disclaim these rights.
- copergi 12y ago
  >Can you explain to me how my computing freedom is enhanced by using a binary that's licensed under the Free BSD licence without the source being released? That isn't a thing. I find it hard to believe you are genuinely as confused as you appear to be. I suspect the "silent downvotes" reflect the likelihood that you are being deliberately dishonest to spread FUD, as your particular example of FUD is older than a lot of the people posting here, so it is hard to believe anyone genuinely doesn't know better at this point. A proprietary program that is a derivative of a BSD licensed program is not a BSD licensed program. It has literally nothing to do with what the BSD license offers you. The GPL is less free than the BSD license because it imposes more restrictions on you. This is incredibly simple and obvious. Many people believe those restrictions are important and good, and you may well believe that yourself. But that doesn't make those restrictions an increase in freedom. Just as some countries prohibit speech they deem objectionable, they may well believe that is better than free speech, but it doesn't make them freer than countries with free speech. Free speech includes the right to say things I don't like, just as free software includes the right to create software licensed under licenses I don't like.
- DanBC 12y ago
  My silent downvote means "discussions about which licence is more free are really tedious. I've probably heard all the arguments people are going to make and I really don't need to hear them again in this thread. One group prefers this licence; another group prefers that licence. They are not going to agree and no-one is going to change their mind so why the fuck can't people just accept that sometimes people make a different choice and move on".

by copergi 12y ago

monochr 12y ago

> Notice how "public domain" is in the less harmful category? And all the licenses in that category as more free than the GPL? That's a very odd definition of "free". Can you explain to me how my computing freedom is enhanced by using a binary that's licensed under the Free BSD licence without the source being released? Compared to a GPL binary where I must be supplied the code as an end user and can vet it to make sure the vendor has not put tracking software/other malicious code inside? I assume the silent downvotes mean "No".

LnxPrgr3 12y ago
I can see why people like the GPL, but it definitely and intentionally restricts some freedoms (such as the ability to link to non-GPL code, or make proprietary changes) so it can guard others. It's a trade-off not everyone's happy with. Here's how I look at it: say a company takes some BSD-licensed code, extensively patches it, then releases it under a proprietary license. I haven't lost any rights from this—I can still use the original code without their changes. The difference is the company isn't legally forced to grant me the same rights to their modifications. They're also able to incorporate outside code that can't be legally re-licensed under the GPL—the GPL instead forces them to find or write an alternative. It's in that sense that the GPL is less free. Its supporters argue that's a good thing; its detractors argue it's a bad thing.
- monochr 12y ago
  Which has nothing to do with what I asked about my freedoms as a user. Developers think that licences that let them charge for binaries, restrict resales and keep competitors out are wonderful. The same way that banks think that debtor prisons were a wonderful idea and billionaires want a flat fixed dollar tax rate is the solution to every problem. There isn't much surprise there. But for the majority of the people, who do not work in the one company releasing the binary, the GPL is infinitely freer than any of the anti-user licences he's listed as "less harmful". So let me ask again: From the point of view of a user how is the MIT or BSD licence freer than the GPL?
  - LnxPrgr3 12y ago
    As a pure user (someone who isn't going to modify and redistribute the software), I see no difference in freedom between BSD and GPL licensed software—I am just as able to download, install and run FreeBSD as Ubuntu. I can even burn a stack of DVDs of either to hand out to my friends. The fact someone else can fork FreeBSD and start selling OppressionCorpBSD doesn't change this at all. Sure, I can't hand out free copies of OppressionCorpBSD, but that doesn't hinder my use of FreeBSD any more than the existence of Windows does. (And I do love my freedom to not use Windows!) Neither license prevents the existence of proprietary software, but the existence of proprietary software doesn't force me to use it. It's the modify-and-redistribute case that's interesting, which is why I focus on that. (Why would you care about having the source code at all if you don't plan to change it?) The nice thing about open source is it lets you blur the lines between user and developer—it lets you change existing software, then give that new version to anyone who wants it. Even as a mostly user sharing minor tweaks, the GPL limits my options—I can only incorporate code I can legally distribute under the GPL. That doesn't hurt me when my patch is entirely my own original code, but it does hurt me if I want to re-use code from a (4-clause) BSD-licensed project, or from any other GPL-incompatible license. The GPL envisions a world where all software is GPL'd. Simpler licenses co-exist in a world where a lot of software isn't GPL'd.
    - kemayo 12y ago
      In the defense of the original poster, he does provide a reason to want the source code without changing it: "[I] can vet it to make sure the vendor has not put tracking software/other malicious code inside". (Of course, if the vendor did that I'm sure they'd just hand me code that didn't match the malicious binary.)
      - LnxPrgr3 12y ago
        True, but you can inspect BSD-licensed source just as freely as GPL'd code too. Not that that's much use against a malicious distributor, who could disguise malicious code so that it passes inspection: http://underhanded.xcott.com http://underhanded.xcott.com.
- antocv 12y ago
  "The difference is the company isn't legally forced to grant me the same rights to their modifications. " Yes, so GPL fans go by "today me, tomorrow you" and this BSD-fans go by "freeeeedooom" but then dont really put their code in public domain - instead maintain their copyright over it - which grants them the rights to revoke or change their license at any time. BSD-license can be revoked by the copyright holder you know. So if all these BSD fans really are "freeedooom", please public domain everything.
  - LnxPrgr3 12y ago
    Can it be? Specifically, can someone release software under the BSD license, then later legally prevent others from using that version under that license? Also: "Few if any legal systems have a process for reliably donating works to the public domain. They may even prohibit any attempt by copyright owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights. An alternative is for copyright holders to issue a licence which irrevocably grants as many rights as possible to the general public, e.g., the CC0 licence from Creative Commons." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Dedicating_works_to_the_public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Dedicating_works_...)
    - mpyne 12y ago
      There's some sort of legal doctrine to the effect that you can't be punished for taking an action that someone led you to believe was authorized. This would protect you in cases where you use the licensed software when the license was still in effect. I suppose the better question is whether someone can rescind their license for their work and prevent future legal use of that software. I'd like to think that's not possible either, but I have no clue to be honest.
  - clarry 12y ago
    As per the Berne convention, some rights are inalienable. In practice this means that there are many countries where you simply cannot put your work in the public domain, or otherwise try to disclaim these rights.
copergi 12y ago
>Can you explain to me how my computing freedom is enhanced by using a binary that's licensed under the Free BSD licence without the source being released? That isn't a thing. I find it hard to believe you are genuinely as confused as you appear to be. I suspect the "silent downvotes" reflect the likelihood that you are being deliberately dishonest to spread FUD, as your particular example of FUD is older than a lot of the people posting here, so it is hard to believe anyone genuinely doesn't know better at this point. A proprietary program that is a derivative of a BSD licensed program is not a BSD licensed program. It has literally nothing to do with what the BSD license offers you. The GPL is less free than the BSD license because it imposes more restrictions on you. This is incredibly simple and obvious. Many people believe those restrictions are important and good, and you may well believe that yourself. But that doesn't make those restrictions an increase in freedom. Just as some countries prohibit speech they deem objectionable, they may well believe that is better than free speech, but it doesn't make them freer than countries with free speech. Free speech includes the right to say things I don't like, just as free software includes the right to create software licensed under licenses I don't like.
DanBC 12y ago
My silent downvote means "discussions about which licence is more free are really tedious. I've probably heard all the arguments people are going to make and I really don't need to hear them again in this thread. One group prefers this licence; another group prefers that licence. They are not going to agree and no-one is going to change their mind so why the fuck can't people just accept that sometimes people make a different choice and move on".