4 ms·

Not really, most proprietary software licenses don't interfere with the ways in which I prefer to release software to clients. Freedom is all about what you wa

by fleitz 12y ago

Not really, most proprietary software licenses don't interfere with the ways in which I prefer to release software to clients. Freedom is all about what you want to do, the problem is that GPL developers and developers who sell things to clients have different objectives for what they want to do. Likewise users of paid for software and users of GPL software have very different expectations of the software, GPL users tend to want to modify the code, and paid for software users want the software to work, but don't want to modify it. So for a GPL developer GPL code is very free, for a non-GPL developer it's not very free.

mbreese 12y ago
To continue with that line of thought... For non-GPL developers, GPL code can even be more expensive than the cost of a proprietary library.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
Well, but using your needs as the defining criteria for freedom is not particularly universal, is it? If a customer of mine requires that I provide them with the ability to use and modify the system I build for them in any way they want, proprietary licenses are quite "tyrannical" (though I wouldn't really use that word), whereas GPL gives me the freedom to do what I want/need to do. Which also seems to highlight a possible confusion on your part, that somehow "paid for software" is the opposite of "GPL software". When I sell software, customers tend to want to be able to modify it, or to have the ability to have others implement modifications for them. And that works both with proprietary code as well as with GPLed code: It's no problem at all to sell code under a proprietary license that allows modifications for own use, but it's also no problem at all to sell code under the GPL, which also allows modifications, and at the same time allows me to build on GPLed code. Also, I don't think terms such as "GPL developer" make much sense. There just is code out there that you can use under different licenses, some of which are incompatible, and for a given project, you have to take care to select components that are compatible technically as well as legally, both between them and with the requirements of the project--and in particular, there isn't really anything all _that_ special about the GPL, as you cannot include proprietary code in a project when the license is not compatible with the customer's requirements either.
davexunit 12y ago
> Not really, most proprietary software licenses don't interfere with the ways in which I prefer to release software to clients. So, you value developer freedom, but not user freedom. Copylefted software is "tyrannical" to you because it prevents you from using the software to build proprietary software. >GPL users tend to want to modify the code Well, some of us modify some of the source code. But I use most free software unmodified. Free software isn't merely to satisfy my penchant for hacking, but to give me the freedom to have control over my computing and share with my neighbors. >paid for software Free software is about freedom, not price. Software can be both free and "paid for".
- fleitz 12y ago
  Yes, copylefted software is "tyrannical" to you because it prevents you from using the software to build proprietary software, your powers reading comprehension astound me.

by fleitz 12y ago

mbreese 12y ago

To continue with that line of thought... For non-GPL developers, GPL code can even be more expensive than the cost of a proprietary library.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago

Well, but using your needs as the defining criteria for freedom is not particularly universal, is it? If a customer of mine requires that I provide them with the ability to use and modify the system I build for them in any way they want, proprietary licenses are quite "tyrannical" (though I wouldn't really use that word), whereas GPL gives me the freedom to do what I want/need to do. Which also seems to highlight a possible confusion on your part, that somehow "paid for software" is the opposite of "GPL software". When I sell software, customers tend to want to be able to modify it, or to have the ability to have others implement modifications for them. And that works both with proprietary code as well as with GPLed code: It's no problem at all to sell code under a proprietary license that allows modifications for own use, but it's also no problem at all to sell code under the GPL, which also allows modifications, and at the same time allows me to build on GPLed code. Also, I don't think terms such as "GPL developer" make much sense. There just is code out there that you can use under different licenses, some of which are incompatible, and for a given project, you have to take care to select components that are compatible technically as well as legally, both between them and with the requirements of the project--and in particular, there isn't really anything all _that_ special about the GPL, as you cannot include proprietary code in a project when the license is not compatible with the customer's requirements either.

davexunit 12y ago

> Not really, most proprietary software licenses don't interfere with the ways in which I prefer to release software to clients. So, you value developer freedom, but not user freedom. Copylefted software is "tyrannical" to you because it prevents you from using the software to build proprietary software. >GPL users tend to want to modify the code Well, some of us modify some of the source code. But I use most free software unmodified. Free software isn't merely to satisfy my penchant for hacking, but to give me the freedom to have control over my computing and share with my neighbors. >paid for software Free software is about freedom, not price. Software can be both free and "paid for".

fleitz 12y ago
Yes, copylefted software is "tyrannical" to you because it prevents you from using the software to build proprietary software, your powers reading comprehension astound me.