7 ms·

I'm not encouraging either just taking the word "free" in the purest sense. GPL has more restrictions than MIT/BSD and thus is less free.

jimktrains2 12y ago
The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. EDIT: Essentially, saying you aren't free because you're not free to kill me without repercussion is absurd. GPL advocates view freedom the same way: You can't do something to hurt me, but that doesn't make you less free.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  >>The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. This is exactly the conflict I was referring too, thank you.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. The GPL does nothing to assure that code will be available. It does assure that if code is available, then it will also usable under Free terms.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    > The GPL does nothing to assure that code will be available. It does assure that if code is available, then it will also usable under Free terms. I do believe you're wrong. If I am using software licensed under the GPL, then the code _must_ be made available. That's the crux of the GPL.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > If I am using software licensed under the GPL, then the code _must_ be made available. If you are distributing software under permission of a GPL license (e.g., you aren't the copyright holder) you are required to also make the source code of what you are distributing (which may not include all of the original on which it is based) available. If you are using software that you received that was licensed under the GPL, the source code may or may not be available (it may have been required to be at the moment the software was distributed, but whether it will be later or not is less clear), and the source of the upstream may or may not be available even if the source of what you received is. GPL doesn't keep the source code that it is attached to available, it assures that the software or legal derivatives will not be legally distributed except under terms that make the source code available. This may encourage the source code to remain available (if there are factors encouraging the distribution of the software), or it may not.
      - jimktrains2 12y ago
        Honest question, is your argument based around the idea of: If the person/entity who has the source of a GPL'd software dies/disappears the source of a binary you're using may not ever be available? Otherwise, you should be able to request the source and the distributor would be required to give it to you under the terms of the GPL?
- clarry 12y ago
  In your world, helping a friend (or a stranger) is like killing somebody? I'm glad I'm not a part of that cult.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    > In your world, helping a friend (or a stranger) is like killing somebody? That literally makes no sense. I was responding to the assertion that the GPL isn't about freedome because it imposes limitations. Living in a free society also has limitations, as an example I used killing another, but we still consider the society free, so the argument doesn't hold water. Limitations =/= Unfree Also, I never asserted that you couldn't help someone. You're free to work on your own code or other code licensed under a license you find to be fair by your own terms. > I'm glad I'm not a part of that cult. I'm not sure what you're referring to, as I believe what I do because I chose to and have come to this position through much debate and reading; I'm not part of any group whose dogma I'm backing. I'm perfectly free to change my opinion on the matter, without repercussion. Please stop using hyperbola, ad hominems, and baseless (nay useless) analogies and please write a coherent rebuttal if you choose to debate this subject.
    - clarry 12y ago
      > I was responding to the assertion that the GPL isn't about freedome because it imposes limitations. People make the example about killing because there are the conflicting freedoms of two people involved: the killer and the victim. And people make that example as if the GPLs restrictions always involved such a conflict. This is not true. The GPLs limit my freedom to do things that are not an attack on others' freedoms. For example, the freedom to combine and redistribute GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. Or the freedom to share a binary with someone who needs it, without forcefully bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code (which that someone likely didn't ask for, doesn't need, and doesn't want to have). The alternative of providing a written offer for the source code (valid for years) can be unacceptable for me because I cannot promise to meet such a requirement -- it makes helping people out potentially very expensive and painful. Therefore my options are to 1) violate the license and lose my freedoms as per the GPLv2 death clause, or 2) not share with the person in need. I don't see how I would be violating anyone's freedom in case 1 -- but I lose mine (if I had freedom to begin with, I think that is questionable). In case 2, the GPL is definitely not helping towards ensuring freedom for either me or the person who needed my help. No, the license is just restricting both of us. > Please stop using hyperbola, ad hominems, and baseless (nay useless) analogies and please write a coherent rebuttal if you choose to debate this subject. It's useless to make a coherent rebuttal because GPL fanatics will just make some incoherent arguments about users versus developers' freedoms. Oh yeah, my freedom to help a friend is a developer freedom, and therefore does not matter. Me wanting to help a friend is like wanting to kill somebody. The society is better off without letting me do such evil. If you think this is freedom, you have such a twisted and distorted understanding of the word that you're as good as a cultist.
- bronson 12y ago
  So, BSD/MIT are the software license equivalent to allowing people to kill without repercussion? It seems your analogy is a wee bit overwrought.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    That's quite literally not what I said. I said that freedom does not inherently mean no limitations. Murder was my example, but that does not mean I equate software distribution to murder. (I had figured this crowd would be astute enough to reason as much.) For the record, I believe that the BSD and MIT license allow the distributor to withhold source from me, which does "hurt" me from my point-of-view. As an example, How many chemistry and biology lab machines have you seen running windows 95 or dos because the company won't release updates for old software and want you to buy a new machine?) I've seen many, and it's very difficult and expensive to keep them running at times because they don't work under emulation for various reasons.
    - bronson 12y ago
      > I said that freedom does not inherently mean no limitations. No, it pretty much does: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom It's true that too much freedom can produce awful results but let's not redefine the word?
      - jimktrains2 12y ago
        Then total anarchy is the only "free" society you'd accept. If you believe that then we're much to far apart to have any rational discussion.
        bronson 12y ago
        If you read my second sentence, it's obvious I don't think that. Why put words in my mouth?
      - belorn 12y ago
zanny 12y ago
Free software is about the users ability to understand how the software works, modify it to their whim, and distribute their modifications or changes. Since permissive licenses enable downstream users to recast the project into a proprietary state, denying those freedoms, then they are less free, in the free software sense. Permissive licenses are developer friendly. They let you do whatever you want, including restricting users of your software. Copyleft is user and ecosystem friendly, by making it so any use of the code must stay available.
- clarry 12y ago
  The user/developer divide is the worst excuse for the GPLs' restrictions. Once users "modifiy it to their whim" and distribute the changes, they're developers and distributors. At that point, it's the developers' and distributors' freedoms that matter to them.
- air 12y ago
  As an end user: I can combine GPLv2 (eg. linux kernel) and BSD licensed code, and distribute it. I can combine GPLv3 and BSD licensed code, and distribute it. I cannot combine GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code, and distribute it. As an end user, I like BSD licensed code more.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    Except the BSD licensed code may not be available for you to distribute or play with; that's the crux of the issue.
    - bronson 12y ago
      That's true of GPL code too... If my project is GPLv2, then GPLv3 code is not available to distribute or play with. Personally I'm happy for people to use and modify the code I've given away, even if they don't choose to give back their changes.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]

jimktrains2 12y ago

The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. EDIT: Essentially, saying you aren't free because you're not free to kill me without repercussion is absurd. GPL advocates view freedom the same way: You can't do something to hurt me, but that doesn't make you less free.

voidlogic 12y ago
>>The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. This is exactly the conflict I was referring too, thank you.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The GPL isn't about the freedom of the dev to do whatever they want, it's about the freedom of the code to always be available. The GPL does nothing to assure that code will be available. It does assure that if code is available, then it will also usable under Free terms.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  > The GPL does nothing to assure that code will be available. It does assure that if code is available, then it will also usable under Free terms. I do believe you're wrong. If I am using software licensed under the GPL, then the code _must_ be made available. That's the crux of the GPL.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > If I am using software licensed under the GPL, then the code _must_ be made available. If you are distributing software under permission of a GPL license (e.g., you aren't the copyright holder) you are required to also make the source code of what you are distributing (which may not include all of the original on which it is based) available. If you are using software that you received that was licensed under the GPL, the source code may or may not be available (it may have been required to be at the moment the software was distributed, but whether it will be later or not is less clear), and the source of the upstream may or may not be available even if the source of what you received is. GPL doesn't keep the source code that it is attached to available, it assures that the software or legal derivatives will not be legally distributed except under terms that make the source code available. This may encourage the source code to remain available (if there are factors encouraging the distribution of the software), or it may not.
    - jimktrains2 12y ago
      Honest question, is your argument based around the idea of: If the person/entity who has the source of a GPL'd software dies/disappears the source of a binary you're using may not ever be available? Otherwise, you should be able to request the source and the distributor would be required to give it to you under the terms of the GPL?
clarry 12y ago
In your world, helping a friend (or a stranger) is like killing somebody? I'm glad I'm not a part of that cult.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  > In your world, helping a friend (or a stranger) is like killing somebody? That literally makes no sense. I was responding to the assertion that the GPL isn't about freedome because it imposes limitations. Living in a free society also has limitations, as an example I used killing another, but we still consider the society free, so the argument doesn't hold water. Limitations =/= Unfree Also, I never asserted that you couldn't help someone. You're free to work on your own code or other code licensed under a license you find to be fair by your own terms. > I'm glad I'm not a part of that cult. I'm not sure what you're referring to, as I believe what I do because I chose to and have come to this position through much debate and reading; I'm not part of any group whose dogma I'm backing. I'm perfectly free to change my opinion on the matter, without repercussion. Please stop using hyperbola, ad hominems, and baseless (nay useless) analogies and please write a coherent rebuttal if you choose to debate this subject.
  - clarry 12y ago
    > I was responding to the assertion that the GPL isn't about freedome because it imposes limitations. People make the example about killing because there are the conflicting freedoms of two people involved: the killer and the victim. And people make that example as if the GPLs restrictions always involved such a conflict. This is not true. The GPLs limit my freedom to do things that are not an attack on others' freedoms. For example, the freedom to combine and redistribute GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. Or the freedom to share a binary with someone who needs it, without forcefully bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code (which that someone likely didn't ask for, doesn't need, and doesn't want to have). The alternative of providing a written offer for the source code (valid for years) can be unacceptable for me because I cannot promise to meet such a requirement -- it makes helping people out potentially very expensive and painful. Therefore my options are to 1) violate the license and lose my freedoms as per the GPLv2 death clause, or 2) not share with the person in need. I don't see how I would be violating anyone's freedom in case 1 -- but I lose mine (if I had freedom to begin with, I think that is questionable). In case 2, the GPL is definitely not helping towards ensuring freedom for either me or the person who needed my help. No, the license is just restricting both of us. > Please stop using hyperbola, ad hominems, and baseless (nay useless) analogies and please write a coherent rebuttal if you choose to debate this subject. It's useless to make a coherent rebuttal because GPL fanatics will just make some incoherent arguments about users versus developers' freedoms. Oh yeah, my freedom to help a friend is a developer freedom, and therefore does not matter. Me wanting to help a friend is like wanting to kill somebody. The society is better off without letting me do such evil. If you think this is freedom, you have such a twisted and distorted understanding of the word that you're as good as a cultist.
bronson 12y ago
So, BSD/MIT are the software license equivalent to allowing people to kill without repercussion? It seems your analogy is a wee bit overwrought.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  That's quite literally not what I said. I said that freedom does not inherently mean no limitations. Murder was my example, but that does not mean I equate software distribution to murder. (I had figured this crowd would be astute enough to reason as much.) For the record, I believe that the BSD and MIT license allow the distributor to withhold source from me, which does "hurt" me from my point-of-view. As an example, How many chemistry and biology lab machines have you seen running windows 95 or dos because the company won't release updates for old software and want you to buy a new machine?) I've seen many, and it's very difficult and expensive to keep them running at times because they don't work under emulation for various reasons.
  - bronson 12y ago
    > I said that freedom does not inherently mean no limitations. No, it pretty much does: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom It's true that too much freedom can produce awful results but let's not redefine the word?
    - jimktrains2 12y ago
      Then total anarchy is the only "free" society you'd accept. If you believe that then we're much to far apart to have any rational discussion.
      - bronson 12y ago
        If you read my second sentence, it's obvious I don't think that. Why put words in my mouth?
    - belorn 12y ago

zanny 12y ago

Free software is about the users ability to understand how the software works, modify it to their whim, and distribute their modifications or changes. Since permissive licenses enable downstream users to recast the project into a proprietary state, denying those freedoms, then they are less free, in the free software sense. Permissive licenses are developer friendly. They let you do whatever you want, including restricting users of your software. Copyleft is user and ecosystem friendly, by making it so any use of the code must stay available.

clarry 12y ago
The user/developer divide is the worst excuse for the GPLs' restrictions. Once users "modifiy it to their whim" and distribute the changes, they're developers and distributors. At that point, it's the developers' and distributors' freedoms that matter to them.
air 12y ago
As an end user: I can combine GPLv2 (eg. linux kernel) and BSD licensed code, and distribute it. I can combine GPLv3 and BSD licensed code, and distribute it. I cannot combine GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code, and distribute it. As an end user, I like BSD licensed code more.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  Except the BSD licensed code may not be available for you to distribute or play with; that's the crux of the issue.
  - bronson 12y ago
    That's true of GPL code too... If my project is GPLv2, then GPLv3 code is not available to distribute or play with. Personally I'm happy for people to use and modify the code I've given away, even if they don't choose to give back their changes.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]