4 ms·

How the GPL Limits Freedom

5 points by eamann 12y ago

gillianseed 12y ago
>Anyone using my GPL-licensed code in their projects must release their subsequent projects under the GPL as well. Yes, GPL's reason for existing is to grant and preserve rights to end users, which is something it can only do if granting those rights to end users is a condition within the licence. >These projects were licensed under the terms of the GPL, therefore my ongoing contributions are also licensed under the GPL. He can also licence his code contributions under any other licence he so chooses alongside with GPL (aka dual licencing), which is something he is either unaware of (which I doubt), or wilfully chooses to ignore here. >If I could, I’d re-license these projects under a more permission license like MIT, but I’m not permitted to do so by the license under which I received them. Indeed, he is not allowed to re-licence other people's code, quelle surprise! Again he can offer his own code contributions under MIT or any other licence if he so wishes.
- eamann 12y ago
  What is the point of dual-licensing a patch to a GPL-licensed project? Sure, anyone can use my contribution to do anything they want, but the _project_ that contribution is a part of is still GPL-only.
  - gillianseed 12y ago
    You were the one complaining about how: 'Anyone using my GPL-licensed code in their projects must release their subsequent projects under the GPL as well.' That was the premise of your blog post. I pointed out that this is not true, since you can dual-licence YOUR GPL-licenced code. You _choose_ to contribute to a GPL licenced project, your own contributions can be dual-licenced by you at your discretion, what exactly are you making a fuzz about?
higherpurpose 12y ago
This reminds me a little of Android's "freedom", which has mainly referred to OEM's and carriers' freedom, rather than the user's freedoms. If Android was fully GPL'ed, the carriers couldn't lock down their devices. You could say that Android gives the "freedom" to the carriers to do that - but that's not the freedom that really matters. The freedom that matters is that of the end user. By a "free" and truly open Android, I would normally understand an Android that the user can use it however it wants - not necessarily the vendor. Unfortunately, Android isn't GPL, so that freedom is mainly for the OEMs and carriers to do whatever they please with it, which has also become a pain in Google's butt, because they're taking it in all sort of different directions, fragmentating it. It's also a little like the bill of rights. You're free to do a lot of things, as long as you don't harm others (generally speaking). You don't have the "freedom" to harm others. Same with GPL. It doesn't give you the "freedom" to harm that software and its users and close it down any way you like. That's a real strength of GPL, not a weakness.

5 points by eamann 12y ago

>Anyone using my GPL-licensed code in their projects must release their subsequent projects under the GPL as well. Yes, GPL's reason for existing is to grant and preserve rights to end users, which is something it can only do if granting those rights to end users is a condition within the licence. >These projects were licensed under the terms of the GPL, therefore my ongoing contributions are also licensed under the GPL. He can also licence his code contributions under any other licence he so chooses alongside with GPL (aka dual licencing), which is something he is either unaware of (which I doubt), or wilfully chooses to ignore here. >If I could, I’d re-license these projects under a more permission license like MIT, but I’m not permitted to do so by the license under which I received them. Indeed, he is not allowed to re-licence other people's code, quelle surprise! Again he can offer his own code contributions under MIT or any other licence if he so wishes.

eamann 12y ago
What is the point of dual-licensing a patch to a GPL-licensed project? Sure, anyone can use my contribution to do anything they want, but the _project_ that contribution is a part of is still GPL-only.
- gillianseed 12y ago
  You were the one complaining about how: 'Anyone using my GPL-licensed code in their projects must release their subsequent projects under the GPL as well.' That was the premise of your blog post. I pointed out that this is not true, since you can dual-licence YOUR GPL-licenced code. You _choose_ to contribute to a GPL licenced project, your own contributions can be dual-licenced by you at your discretion, what exactly are you making a fuzz about?

higherpurpose 12y ago

This reminds me a little of Android's "freedom", which has mainly referred to OEM's and carriers' freedom, rather than the user's freedoms. If Android was fully GPL'ed, the carriers couldn't lock down their devices. You could say that Android gives the "freedom" to the carriers to do that - but that's not the freedom that really matters. The freedom that matters is that of the end user. By a "free" and truly open Android, I would normally understand an Android that the user can use it however it wants - not necessarily the vendor. Unfortunately, Android isn't GPL, so that freedom is mainly for the OEMs and carriers to do whatever they please with it, which has also become a pain in Google's butt, because they're taking it in all sort of different directions, fragmentating it. It's also a little like the bill of rights. You're free to do a lot of things, as long as you don't harm others (generally speaking). You don't have the "freedom" to harm others. Same with GPL. It doesn't give you the "freedom" to harm that software and its users and close it down any way you like. That's a real strength of GPL, not a weakness.