5 ms·

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 k

by 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.
    - lomnakkus 12y ago
      (Oh, $DEITY I don't want to get involved in another BSD vs. GPL thread, but I just can't help myself...) You can't inspect the source of something BSD-derived that's distributed as a binary (which I suspect is the point of the parent poster). Interestingly the GPL sort-of stipulates that the recipient of the software should be able to build the software from source. This would allow a sufficiently paranoid recipient to inspect all the source and compile said source. (Ken Thompson's caveat notwithstanding.)
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        Ken Thompson's caveat has a solution: www.dwheeler.com/trusting-trust
      - LnxPrgr3 12y ago
        Paranoid me is stuck between a rock and a hard place—I don't want to have to trust a ton of third parties with my security, but I'm unlikely to be able to ensure it on my own and still benefit from modern technology. That's not just because I depend on proprietary software—frankly, there's no way I could audit every line of code that runs on a Linux system that solves the problems I want it to solve, and even if I could, it's almost guaranteed I'll still miss something critical in the process. But that's another topic. If I think it'll buy me something, I'm free to audit the source to both GPL and BSD-licensed software. I can't audit the source to proprietary derivatives of BSD-licensed software, but if I choose not to run it that doesn't hurt me any more than it hurts me that Windows continues to exist despite my refusal to use it. In other words, I'm still free to make choices that preserve my freedom, no matter what another group chooses to do with their derivative works of software I run.
- mpyne 12y ago
  > 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. The point of the GPL is that your use of FreeBSD wouldn't be hindered today, but might be hindered in the future. Whether you accept the possibility of that scenario as valid or not is up to you, of course, but it's not simply a theoretical threat (after all, RMS witnessed it happen before his very eyes in the days of Lisp machines).
kemayo 12y ago
Disingenuously, from the point of view of an average user it's all the same, since the average person doesn't audit source code. If you're in possession of some GPL-licensed source code, then it clearly restricts your freedom to do things with it, compared to BSD/MIT-licensed code. If you're arguing otherwise, I think you're being purposefully obtuse.
clarry 12y ago
Why do you discriminate against developers? Many of the GPLs' restrictions have everything to do with propagating freedoms that enable users to be developers. In fact for mere users who have no intention of developing or hiring someone to do it, many of the freedoms granted are just plain useless. Coincidentally, many of the people who prefer permissive licenses are users and developers (and because they share their work, distributors!) at the same time. That is why they go with licenses that respect freedoms relevant to all these roles equally, without discriminating. Even if you are not developing software, the GPL (v2 in particular) has a nice trap in it should you decide to use your, ehm... freedom to share the software with a friend who needs it. In case you forget to comply with all its petty obligations.. With no developers there are no users.
copergi 12y ago
>Which has nothing to do with what I asked about my freedoms as a user. Yes it does. The hypocrisy inherent in this line of reasoning is that the GPL exists specifically because the distinction between "user" and "developer" is a false one. The GPL seeks to protect so called "developer freedoms" for all users. But then misguided GPL advocates turn around and present the false dichotomy of user vs developer in an effort to spread FUD about BSD/MIT/ISC/etc licenses. >But for the majority of the people, who do not work in the one company releasing the binary, the GPL is infinitely freer No it is not. Sqlite (public domain) is totally free. I can do literally anything with it. That is maximum freedom. Postgresql (BSD) is less free, I have to follow certain restrictions in order to do certain things with it. Mysql (GPL) is even less free. I have to follow more restrictions. This is trivially simple and obvious, which is why lying about it tends to earn downvotes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - clarry 12y ago
    Care to elaborate? Because from reading what you just wrote, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by group freedom here. But one thing I know is that a restriction is still a restriction whether it's one, five, or fifty people who want to do a thing with the code. That is probably not what you meant by group.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      From the point of view of someone more sympathetic to the GPL, I'll say that for some it's about sustainability of freedoms. If a proprietary fork draws away the user base (and maybe hires away key developers), I don't lose access to existing code, but updated code becomes substantially less likely and un-updated code (often) becomes gradually less useful. This situation is by no means impossible for GPL software but it's less likely (it can't be an actual fork, so there's more work to be done at the outset). In the short term, it's reasonable to say that BSD is "more free" in that it permits things that GPL does not. In the long term, the usable versions of that code may not be free at all. The one arguable caveat regarding BSD's short-term win (which would make it a short-term tie not a short-term win for the GPL) is that the only restrictions the GPL applies are against infringing on the rights of others. In which case, we're not talking about "freedoms" but "powers" being impinged - I'm not "less free" because I don't have the right to kill people, we're all (individually!) more free for not having to worry as much about arbitrary threats to our lives. To the degree this is the case, there's an argument there; the degree to which this is the case is not 100%, though - there are corner cases - but it is pretty typically the case. Whether you buy the argument is of course up to you.
eekee 12y ago
You as a user may work for a company which feels it can't afford the risk of GPL-licensed code getting into their products, and may thus forbid you working on GPL-licensed code while you're working for them. Or somewhat lighter but no less bad is the case where your workload could be eased or better results achieved by incorporating BSD-licensed software into your company's product where your company feels it couldn't allow GPL-licensed software. These cases show the GPL is better for hobbyists than working people. Then there's the fact that the GPL doesn't restrict the authors of the software. Some companies release under the GPL to get fixes, features, and kudos from the open source community without making life too easy for their competitors. Overall the GPL does do some good, but it's certainly not freely giving to the world in the way MIT and BSD licenses do.

by monochr 12y ago

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.
  - lomnakkus 12y ago
    (Oh, $DEITY I don't want to get involved in another BSD vs. GPL thread, but I just can't help myself...) You can't inspect the source of something BSD-derived that's distributed as a binary (which I suspect is the point of the parent poster). Interestingly the GPL sort-of stipulates that the recipient of the software should be able to build the software from source. This would allow a sufficiently paranoid recipient to inspect all the source and compile said source. (Ken Thompson's caveat notwithstanding.)
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Ken Thompson's caveat has a solution: www.dwheeler.com/trusting-trust
    - LnxPrgr3 12y ago
      Paranoid me is stuck between a rock and a hard place—I don't want to have to trust a ton of third parties with my security, but I'm unlikely to be able to ensure it on my own and still benefit from modern technology. That's not just because I depend on proprietary software—frankly, there's no way I could audit every line of code that runs on a Linux system that solves the problems I want it to solve, and even if I could, it's almost guaranteed I'll still miss something critical in the process. But that's another topic. If I think it'll buy me something, I'm free to audit the source to both GPL and BSD-licensed software. I can't audit the source to proprietary derivatives of BSD-licensed software, but if I choose not to run it that doesn't hurt me any more than it hurts me that Windows continues to exist despite my refusal to use it. In other words, I'm still free to make choices that preserve my freedom, no matter what another group chooses to do with their derivative works of software I run.
mpyne 12y ago
> 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. The point of the GPL is that your use of FreeBSD wouldn't be hindered today, but might be hindered in the future. Whether you accept the possibility of that scenario as valid or not is up to you, of course, but it's not simply a theoretical threat (after all, RMS witnessed it happen before his very eyes in the days of Lisp machines).

kemayo 12y ago

Disingenuously, from the point of view of an average user it's all the same, since the average person doesn't audit source code. If you're in possession of some GPL-licensed source code, then it clearly restricts your freedom to do things with it, compared to BSD/MIT-licensed code. If you're arguing otherwise, I think you're being purposefully obtuse.

clarry 12y ago

Why do you discriminate against developers? Many of the GPLs' restrictions have everything to do with propagating freedoms that enable users to be developers. In fact for mere users who have no intention of developing or hiring someone to do it, many of the freedoms granted are just plain useless. Coincidentally, many of the people who prefer permissive licenses are users and developers (and because they share their work, distributors!) at the same time. That is why they go with licenses that respect freedoms relevant to all these roles equally, without discriminating. Even if you are not developing software, the GPL (v2 in particular) has a nice trap in it should you decide to use your, ehm... freedom to share the software with a friend who needs it. In case you forget to comply with all its petty obligations.. With no developers there are no users.

copergi 12y ago

>Which has nothing to do with what I asked about my freedoms as a user. Yes it does. The hypocrisy inherent in this line of reasoning is that the GPL exists specifically because the distinction between "user" and "developer" is a false one. The GPL seeks to protect so called "developer freedoms" for all users. But then misguided GPL advocates turn around and present the false dichotomy of user vs developer in an effort to spread FUD about BSD/MIT/ISC/etc licenses. >But for the majority of the people, who do not work in the one company releasing the binary, the GPL is infinitely freer No it is not. Sqlite (public domain) is totally free. I can do literally anything with it. That is maximum freedom. Postgresql (BSD) is less free, I have to follow certain restrictions in order to do certain things with it. Mysql (GPL) is even less free. I have to follow more restrictions. This is trivially simple and obvious, which is why lying about it tends to earn downvotes.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- clarry 12y ago
  Care to elaborate? Because from reading what you just wrote, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by group freedom here. But one thing I know is that a restriction is still a restriction whether it's one, five, or fifty people who want to do a thing with the code. That is probably not what you meant by group.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    From the point of view of someone more sympathetic to the GPL, I'll say that for some it's about sustainability of freedoms. If a proprietary fork draws away the user base (and maybe hires away key developers), I don't lose access to existing code, but updated code becomes substantially less likely and un-updated code (often) becomes gradually less useful. This situation is by no means impossible for GPL software but it's less likely (it can't be an actual fork, so there's more work to be done at the outset). In the short term, it's reasonable to say that BSD is "more free" in that it permits things that GPL does not. In the long term, the usable versions of that code may not be free at all. The one arguable caveat regarding BSD's short-term win (which would make it a short-term tie not a short-term win for the GPL) is that the only restrictions the GPL applies are against infringing on the rights of others. In which case, we're not talking about "freedoms" but "powers" being impinged - I'm not "less free" because I don't have the right to kill people, we're all (individually!) more free for not having to worry as much about arbitrary threats to our lives. To the degree this is the case, there's an argument there; the degree to which this is the case is not 100%, though - there are corner cases - but it is pretty typically the case. Whether you buy the argument is of course up to you.

eekee 12y ago

You as a user may work for a company which feels it can't afford the risk of GPL-licensed code getting into their products, and may thus forbid you working on GPL-licensed code while you're working for them. Or somewhat lighter but no less bad is the case where your workload could be eased or better results achieved by incorporating BSD-licensed software into your company's product where your company feels it couldn't allow GPL-licensed software. These cases show the GPL is better for hobbyists than working people. Then there's the fact that the GPL doesn't restrict the authors of the software. Some companies release under the GPL to get fixes, features, and kudos from the open source community without making life too easy for their competitors. Overall the GPL does do some good, but it's certainly not freely giving to the world in the way MIT and BSD licenses do.