6 ms·

> To cement the point, I'm going to show you what an actual, objective, maximally free license might look like: > "Do whatever you want with this software." S

> To cement the point, I'm going to show you what an actual, objective, maximally free license might look like: > "Do whatever you want with this software." So here's the perspective shift you need to understand it: that's not "maximally free". Because software is rarely a simple one layer system like: programmer -> user Instead it passes through many hands: programmer -> derivative work programmer -> packager -> user Your "maximally free" license is only maximal at the first exchange. But it gives anyone in the chain the "freedom" to remove the end user's ability to change the code (or incorporate it into a derivative work) as they see fit. The GPL, on the other hand, tries to preserve the freedom all the way to the end user. There are way more users than there are middle-men, so I'd say the GPL gives more freedom to the world, even though it ties the hands of the people along the way to the end user ("forcing" them to pass the freedoms they enjoyed on to the next guy in the chain). It really comes down to whether you believe that you (the end-user) should have the fundamental right to tinker with the source code of any piece of software you buy/acquire/run. The FSF believes in that right. Everything they do falls out from that belief. > This is probably a good place to mention that the GPL licenses are specifically protected by copyright held and enforced by the FSF. No, not really—it's not applicable to the situation at all. (A) The GPL isn't itself software, and (B) it's tightly controlled for practical reasons—if everyone and their dog changed little bits of the license you'd have a million incompatible licenses out there. That can only do harm to the ecosystem.

bane 12y ago
I don't materially disagree with most of what your saying. You seem to be providing an appropriately nuanced view of how the GPL works and the goals. And I agree completely with this statement > Your "maximally free" license is only maximal at the first exchange. But it gives anyone in the chain the "freedom" to remove the end user's ability to change the code (or incorporate it into a derivative work) as they see fit. That is entirely correct. What I disagree with (a little bit) is this > The GPL, on the other hand, tries to preserve the freedom all the way to the end user. The GPL tries to preserve a particular kind of freedom through the chain -- and that kind of freedom is rather narrow, even if it does try to guarantee self-perpetuity. But it completely tramples all others -- especially v3, which does so with prejudice. This is consistently what my point is in this thread. I'm not sure I understand where any disagreement on this definition lies. You even agree that the GPL is not maximal and only guarantees a subset of the freedoms a notional maximal license grants "it gives anyone in the chain the 'freedom' to...<do whatever>". But you'll see by all the downvotes here that a discussion of the merits and drawbacks of the GPL is virtually impossible -- because "freedom". > It really comes down to whether you believe that you (the end-user) should have the fundamental right to tinker with... The notional maximal license also believes in this. But it does not guarantee it. The notional maximal license believes all freedoms are equally valid and does not enforce one particular freedom at the expense of others. And to be clear, I'm not advocating for the notional maximal license. It has obvious shortcomings and also protects many kinds of objectively negative freedoms (the right to profit from other people's labor without their consent, etc.). But I'm using it as a trivial tool to demonstrate that the GPL does not ensure the greatest possible freedom. It merely ensures the greatest possible expression of one particular kind of freedom, and it does so at the expense of others. I'm also not saying the GPL is bad, it is what it is. It's resulted in a lot of good in the world and some bad. But again, it is what it is, it's not a tool for ensuring the most possible freedom. > No, not really—it's not applicable to the situation at all. (A) The GPL isn't itself software... Actually it is. The GPL can be used on non-software items. Not GPLing the license itself does nothing to prevent the proliferation of licenses. There are already hundreds of incompatible licenses. Not GPLing the GPL I think is shortsighted. If the original vanilla GPL licenses are the best, people will use them regardless of the derivatives and alternatives, if they aren't then they'll use something else, even if it's an incompatible derivative.
- __david__ 12y ago
  The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to deny freedom to others. Just as I live in a free country, yet I don't have the freedom to steal my neighbor's TV with no consequences. In that sense, yes, the GPL denies freedom. I guess I don't see the point of that argument though. > But I'm using it as a trivial tool to demonstrate that the GPL does not ensure the greatest possible freedom. It merely ensures the greatest possible expression of one particular kind of freedom, and it does so at the expense of others. Yes, I suppose I'm not really counting negative freedoms as freedom (since negative freedoms tend to take away freedom from others, or cause others harm). So from my perspective, the GPL takes away a bunch of negative freedoms as the cost of bestowing positive freedoms. That seems more maximally free (in the positive sense) to me than something that mixes a bunch of negative freedoms in, where the negative freedoms are allowed to cancel the positive ones. > > It really comes down to whether you believe that you (the end-user) should have the fundamental right to tinker with... > The notional maximal license also believes in this. But it does not guarantee it. Then I would argue it doesn't really believe it. No true Scotsman, etc.
  - bane 12y ago
    > The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to deny freedom to others. Example, I would like to take GPL software and then put it into the public domain. No freedoms have been abridged, I have not prevented people from making changes to the software or tinkering with it, nor have I denied anybody the freedom to take it and put it back under some kind of license (after some derivation). In fact I would enable numerous freedoms, like the freedom for somebody to take the PD code and make changes (uninfringed), and then sell that changed code without releasing the source. The GPL prevents me from having this freedom and others from enjoying the results of my exercise of this freedom. You argue that a person who does that is unethically taking advantage of somebody else's labor, but the freedom of the originator to do the same isn't abridged either, so the originators of the labor could benefit from their own labor. Or they can mix code from incompatible licenses, a freedom prevented under the GPL (most specifically 3). Under my license arbitrary distinctions like preventing the freedom to "link" to code are eliminated. I've advanced freedom again. The trade-off is that I've removed the guarantee of perpetuating the transmission and disclosure of the source code. That's the only thing I've changed. But I haven't prevented the same thing from happening either. Under my plan somebody could make changes and also disseminate those changes via releasing the source if they wished to. Changes to the source might still thus perpetuate. But no freedom has been denied. Unlike with the GPL. The GPL also seriously erodes the freedom to earn reward for labor and virtually abolishes the freedom to earn reward due to property ownership. It's a tradeoff that sides with increasing the efficiency of labor (by allowing for reuse). But there's a large body of work on recognized, but unexercisable freedoms because the person lacks the means to exercise it. > Just as I live in a free country, yet I don't have the freedom to steal my neighbor's TV with no consequences. In that sense, yes, the GPL denies freedom. I guess I don't see the point of that argument though. Then why argue it? I'm shedding karma here, because people can't accept this inarguable point of fact. More problematic than the freedom the GPL erodes is the religious tones it takes on. People talk about "freedom" without understanding it and downvote sensible discussions of the issues with the GPL without debate. Locke keeps being brought up by somebody else, but Locke's philosophy on property and the GPL are squarely at odds and irreconcilable. > > The notional maximal license also believes in this. But it does not guarantee it. Then I would argue it doesn't really believe it. No true Scotsman, etc. There's an enormous body of work on freedom as a guarantee vs. freedoms needing to be exercised. The notional maximal license enables all freedoms, but requires them to be exercised to be enjoyed. The GPL enables and guarantees a single freedom, but at the expense of all others.

bane 12y ago

I don't materially disagree with most of what your saying. You seem to be providing an appropriately nuanced view of how the GPL works and the goals. And I agree completely with this statement > Your "maximally free" license is only maximal at the first exchange. But it gives anyone in the chain the "freedom" to remove the end user's ability to change the code (or incorporate it into a derivative work) as they see fit. That is entirely correct. What I disagree with (a little bit) is this > The GPL, on the other hand, tries to preserve the freedom all the way to the end user. The GPL tries to preserve a particular kind of freedom through the chain -- and that kind of freedom is rather narrow, even if it does try to guarantee self-perpetuity. But it completely tramples all others -- especially v3, which does so with prejudice. This is consistently what my point is in this thread. I'm not sure I understand where any disagreement on this definition lies. You even agree that the GPL is not maximal and only guarantees a subset of the freedoms a notional maximal license grants "it gives anyone in the chain the 'freedom' to...<do whatever>". But you'll see by all the downvotes here that a discussion of the merits and drawbacks of the GPL is virtually impossible -- because "freedom". > It really comes down to whether you believe that you (the end-user) should have the fundamental right to tinker with... The notional maximal license also believes in this. But it does not guarantee it. The notional maximal license believes all freedoms are equally valid and does not enforce one particular freedom at the expense of others. And to be clear, I'm not advocating for the notional maximal license. It has obvious shortcomings and also protects many kinds of objectively negative freedoms (the right to profit from other people's labor without their consent, etc.). But I'm using it as a trivial tool to demonstrate that the GPL does not ensure the greatest possible freedom. It merely ensures the greatest possible expression of one particular kind of freedom, and it does so at the expense of others. I'm also not saying the GPL is bad, it is what it is. It's resulted in a lot of good in the world and some bad. But again, it is what it is, it's not a tool for ensuring the most possible freedom. > No, not really—it's not applicable to the situation at all. (A) The GPL isn't itself software... Actually it is. The GPL can be used on non-software items. Not GPLing the license itself does nothing to prevent the proliferation of licenses. There are already hundreds of incompatible licenses. Not GPLing the GPL I think is shortsighted. If the original vanilla GPL licenses are the best, people will use them regardless of the derivatives and alternatives, if they aren't then they'll use something else, even if it's an incompatible derivative.

__david__ 12y ago
The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to deny freedom to others. Just as I live in a free country, yet I don't have the freedom to steal my neighbor's TV with no consequences. In that sense, yes, the GPL denies freedom. I guess I don't see the point of that argument though. > But I'm using it as a trivial tool to demonstrate that the GPL does not ensure the greatest possible freedom. It merely ensures the greatest possible expression of one particular kind of freedom, and it does so at the expense of others. Yes, I suppose I'm not really counting negative freedoms as freedom (since negative freedoms tend to take away freedom from others, or cause others harm). So from my perspective, the GPL takes away a bunch of negative freedoms as the cost of bestowing positive freedoms. That seems more maximally free (in the positive sense) to me than something that mixes a bunch of negative freedoms in, where the negative freedoms are allowed to cancel the positive ones. > > It really comes down to whether you believe that you (the end-user) should have the fundamental right to tinker with... > The notional maximal license also believes in this. But it does not guarantee it. Then I would argue it doesn't really believe it. No true Scotsman, etc.
- bane 12y ago
  > The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to deny freedom to others. Example, I would like to take GPL software and then put it into the public domain. No freedoms have been abridged, I have not prevented people from making changes to the software or tinkering with it, nor have I denied anybody the freedom to take it and put it back under some kind of license (after some derivation). In fact I would enable numerous freedoms, like the freedom for somebody to take the PD code and make changes (uninfringed), and then sell that changed code without releasing the source. The GPL prevents me from having this freedom and others from enjoying the results of my exercise of this freedom. You argue that a person who does that is unethically taking advantage of somebody else's labor, but the freedom of the originator to do the same isn't abridged either, so the originators of the labor could benefit from their own labor. Or they can mix code from incompatible licenses, a freedom prevented under the GPL (most specifically 3). Under my license arbitrary distinctions like preventing the freedom to "link" to code are eliminated. I've advanced freedom again. The trade-off is that I've removed the guarantee of perpetuating the transmission and disclosure of the source code. That's the only thing I've changed. But I haven't prevented the same thing from happening either. Under my plan somebody could make changes and also disseminate those changes via releasing the source if they wished to. Changes to the source might still thus perpetuate. But no freedom has been denied. Unlike with the GPL. The GPL also seriously erodes the freedom to earn reward for labor and virtually abolishes the freedom to earn reward due to property ownership. It's a tradeoff that sides with increasing the efficiency of labor (by allowing for reuse). But there's a large body of work on recognized, but unexercisable freedoms because the person lacks the means to exercise it. > Just as I live in a free country, yet I don't have the freedom to steal my neighbor's TV with no consequences. In that sense, yes, the GPL denies freedom. I guess I don't see the point of that argument though. Then why argue it? I'm shedding karma here, because people can't accept this inarguable point of fact. More problematic than the freedom the GPL erodes is the religious tones it takes on. People talk about "freedom" without understanding it and downvote sensible discussions of the issues with the GPL without debate. Locke keeps being brought up by somebody else, but Locke's philosophy on property and the GPL are squarely at odds and irreconcilable. > > The notional maximal license also believes in this. But it does not guarantee it. Then I would argue it doesn't really believe it. No true Scotsman, etc. There's an enormous body of work on freedom as a guarantee vs. freedoms needing to be exercised. The notional maximal license enables all freedoms, but requires them to be exercised to be enjoyed. The GPL enables and guarantees a single freedom, but at the expense of all others.