5 ms·

> what the goals of the GPL license are besides a warm and fuzzy feeling that no-one is ripping them off GPL ensures freedom for users of the software, not dev

> what the goals of the GPL license are besides a warm and fuzzy feeling that no-one is ripping them off GPL ensures freedom for users of the software, not developers of the software -- a distinction that is missed every single time licensing is discussed. Developers that use the GPL are (hopefully consciously) making a choice to ensure software freedom for their users. This article did a very good job of tackling this this from another perspective, by addressing the usual (and tired) argument that the GPL offers less freedom than more permissive licenses due to the share-alike clause. Limiting "power" to take away freedom is a nice way to put it. Not to derail this discussion, but my personal opinion is that the GPL is a bit ahead of its time. With the marginal cost of software being nil, the path of least resistance is just to make software free. The problem is, someone still has to produce this software, and unless we hit post-scarcity, production is going to cost money [1]. So the GPL straddles an awkward tension between ideals and economic reality right now. This is in addition to the more overt goals of FSF/GNU in terms of privacy, control and self-determination, which RMS has proven to be quite prescient about. [1] "In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming." https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html -- a very good read.

djur 12y ago
Nearly every argument against the GPL is based on convenience or desirability for developers. I think in a lot of ways that's the primary split between the FSF free/OSI open source factions. Reading the GNU manifesto was a lifechanger for me. Even though I've strayed (i.e. am employed producing proprietary software), I still believe the GNU project and the FSF are the most important things to ever happen to the computing world.
Gurkenmaster 12y ago
>GPL ensures freedom for users of the software, not developers of the software GPL may be true for end user facing applications but it's terrible for libraries where the primary user is the developer.
digi_owl 12y ago
Or to put it a different way, the GPL don't distinguish between user and developer. Frankly i have noticed a trend towards a more hard set distinction between the two as of late. The perfect example is the Google Chromebooks, and their "developer" switch. Thing about that switch is that when flipped, in either direction, it will wipe the device clean. Thus going from user to developer or back becomes a very big deal. This is very different from earlier personal computers, where one would often have some kind of programming language (usually a Basic variant) right at hand. Thinking about it brings to mind the scene in Tron: Legacy when the main profess himself not a program, and the presenter declare him a user in a mocking tone. I almost get the feel that "users" are considered no more than cattle, to be fleeced (or worse) ever so often for cash to keep the farmers (developers) happy. And formulating it like that i find myself reminded of the claim about magazine subscriptions, that the reader is not the customer but the product. The real business of the magazines are that of selling ad space. I wonder if the same mentality is seeping into the "app" and "cloud service" spheres. And all this brings to mind the enclosure movement, that brought many a former small scale farmer to the cities to become a factory worker. This because what used to be common grazing land etc, had been privatized and fenced off.

djur 12y ago

Nearly every argument against the GPL is based on convenience or desirability for developers. I think in a lot of ways that's the primary split between the FSF free/OSI open source factions. Reading the GNU manifesto was a lifechanger for me. Even though I've strayed (i.e. am employed producing proprietary software), I still believe the GNU project and the FSF are the most important things to ever happen to the computing world.

Gurkenmaster 12y ago

>GPL ensures freedom for users of the software, not developers of the software GPL may be true for end user facing applications but it's terrible for libraries where the primary user is the developer.

digi_owl 12y ago

Or to put it a different way, the GPL don't distinguish between user and developer. Frankly i have noticed a trend towards a more hard set distinction between the two as of late. The perfect example is the Google Chromebooks, and their "developer" switch. Thing about that switch is that when flipped, in either direction, it will wipe the device clean. Thus going from user to developer or back becomes a very big deal. This is very different from earlier personal computers, where one would often have some kind of programming language (usually a Basic variant) right at hand. Thinking about it brings to mind the scene in Tron: Legacy when the main profess himself not a program, and the presenter declare him a user in a mocking tone. I almost get the feel that "users" are considered no more than cattle, to be fleeced (or worse) ever so often for cash to keep the farmers (developers) happy. And formulating it like that i find myself reminded of the claim about magazine subscriptions, that the reader is not the customer but the product. The real business of the magazines are that of selling ad space. I wonder if the same mentality is seeping into the "app" and "cloud service" spheres. And all this brings to mind the enclosure movement, that brought many a former small scale farmer to the cities to become a factory worker. This because what used to be common grazing land etc, had been privatized and fenced off.