5 ms·

GPL and copyleft further a cause. It's primarily for increasing user freedom. User freedom isn't developer freedom. It's everyone's freedom, indirectly. You're

by aric 12y ago

GPL and copyleft further a cause. It's primarily for increasing user freedom. User freedom isn't developer freedom. It's everyone's freedom, indirectly. You're free to disagree with its agenda. But recognize it as a cause. Other causes seem to be respected or at least understood. No one, for instance, is surprised to see that save-the-whales advocates try to save the whales. They recognize their cause. They may disagree with their cause. They may question why it's a worthy cause. They may think it's a counterproductive cause. Maybe they ultimately love the taste of whale. They may disagree with semantics. That's inevitable. It isn't helpful, however, to exhibit (or feign) ignorance of the nature and motivations that would understand it as a cause. Unfortunately, that's a common habit when it comes to those who argue against GPL. GPL isn't for everyone. It's that simple. For developers who do feel that GPL speaks to their goals, I raise a glass. When possible, I use their software and develop in kind. Why? I agree with that cause. > Stallman believes that linking against a DLL constitutes a derived work that would be subject to the GPL's copyleft nature. Basic software dependencies, with few exceptions, are subject to GPL. Why would anyone expect otherwise?

zamalek 12y ago
Nicely put, however, according to GNU.org: > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). I actually can't do that with GPL code - not because my employer tells me not to but because I know that could get my employer into trouble. With MIT/BSD you run the risk of someone taking the code and never contributing back. With GPL you run the risk of excluding people from the ability to participate. There is no license that encompasses all rights and freedoms because it's probably impossible to create a set of rules that would encompass everyone. Our freedoms are strangely mutually exclusive in some ways. I think forrestthewoods issue with GPL is that it is toted at 'the' way to preserve freedom - where the truth is that it's the way to preserve one form of freedom. That's why I never, ever, say "freedom" when talking about GPL and rather always say "free as in beer."
- djur 12y ago
  But you only risk getting your employer into trouble because they're committed to releasing proprietary software. The FSF considers proprietary software evil; the GPL inconveniencing developers of such software is a central goal, not collateral damage. Now, if the concern is that you can't modify a GPLed text editor or compiler or browser or other such tool at your workplace, that shouldn't be an issue. Unless you're releasing modified binaries from GPL code, you are under no obligation to distribute your changes to the source.
  - zamalek 12y ago
    > Now, if the concern is that you can't modify a GPLed text editor [...] That is indeed the issue. The concept is that I might read some algorithm or solution as a whole while working with the GPL code. This solution, even if not directly copied, might end up in the code of the proprietary (and patented) product. If prosecuted in America, where the court is interpretive on new issues, this could result in trouble for my employer. Having no previous rulings to go by, there is no way to approximate the outcome of a case such as this and hence looking at GPL code could constitute a risk. A good "inverted" example of this is when Oracle went after Google/Android for supposedly having copied a hashing function. The obvious question and defense is: common data structures have obvious hashing functions and there is a good likelihood of coming with identical or near-identical code, i.e. serendipity.[1] Even though there is no proof that the code was copied, the court ruled in favor of Oracle on the grounds of "structure, sequence and organization of an API is copyrightable." How this applies to GPL code, from my situation, is uncertain. GPL has patent clauses, so it's really risky. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,....
    - monochr 12y ago
      In that case you can't possibly read any code whatsoever. Yet again the GPL does not restrict your freedoms. It just adds to them if you're in the pro-user freedom camp of software development and leaves you no worse off if you don't.
      - 12y ago
- aric 12y ago
  > With GPL you run the risk of excluding people from the ability to participate. Prohibiting actions and thus excluding people is the point of GPL and most licenses. GPL is a cause. I'll keep reiterating that point. To some people, "freedom" means a WTFPL license. To many GPL users, WTFPL would be antithetical to their pursuit of freedom. Freedom is abstract. Many people feel they must perpetuate certain underlying principles to embody any semblance of freedom. Paraphrasing the views of Free computing advocates: in a world where oppression is normal -- in this case, speaking of any inherent oppression in non-transparent boxes that comprise most of software and hardware today -- one tactic to break the cycle of abuse is by harnessing any available tools of the system (e.g. copyright law). There are various voluntary, peaceful strategies to promote freedom. That's one. Freedom means many things to many people, understandably. To me, GPL does speak to a 'freedom' I want to increase. Personal freedoms of developers and companies [to do whatever they please] is only a secondary concern. Your employer is a secondary concern. Perpetuating transparency in computing is the primary concern.
- simonh 12y ago
  > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). >>I actually can't do that with GPL code - not because my employer tells me >>not to but because I know that could get my employer into trouble. This is extremely loose and deceptive talk. That freedom is genuine and valuable. You are talking about something completely different, that has no bearing whatever on freedom 1. The company I work for modifies and revises GPL'd code all the time. It causes us no problems whatsoever, because we don't release or distribute it. Instead we just use it internally for our own purposes. Nothing in the GPL restricts your use, abuse or modification of the code. It only restricts how you can go about sharing and distributing it.
  - rbanffy 12y ago
    > It only restricts how you can go about sharing and distributing it. Let me clarify this: the GPL allows you to redistribute your modified version. It only mandates you give your users the same rights you were given, so that they too can study and modify and share their work. You get to stand on the shoulders of giants (for free!), but you have no right to prevent others from doing the same.
    - simonh 12y ago
      Absolutely.
    - forrestthewoods 12y ago
      "but you have no right to prevent others from doing the same" That's not quite right. It's not you have no right to prevent others from doing the same. Neither GPL nor MIT let you stop other people from standing on the same shoulders you stood on. The difference is whether you must let people stand on your shoulders. GPL forces you to open your shoulders. MIT lets you choose to share your shoulders or not.
      - rbanffy 12y ago
        Fair point. You get the right to stand on the shoulders of giants, but you have no right to prevent others from standing on your shoulders as long as you are on the shoulders of giants.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> GPL and copyleft further a cause. It's primarily for increasing user freedom. I don't disagree that that's the intent of the GPL and copyleft; I'm not convinced that (once the pragmatic case for Free software was established), that it is the actual effect of the GPL and copyleft. User freedom is maximized by having the most software available under the least restrictive licenses; copyleft licenses add restrictions with the intent of using those restrictions to compel downstream developers to also release modifications as Free software. However, if there are already pragmatic benefits to releasing Free software, the marginal benefits of those additional restrictions in terms of actually promoting practical user freedom is reduced, while the additional restrictions are, themselves, restrictions that can limit the freedom of users. > You're free to disagree with its agenda. But recognize it as a cause. I can recognize it as being directed at serving a cause and still think it does so poorly. > Basic software dependencies, with few exceptions, are subject to GPL. Why would anyone expect otherwise? Because interoperation with something doesn't make it a derivative work requiring a copyright license usually (though, I suppose, that view of Stallman's is consistent with the still-on-appeal ruling on API copyrights in Oracle v. Google.)

by aric 12y ago

zamalek 12y ago

Nicely put, however, according to GNU.org: > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). I actually can't do that with GPL code - not because my employer tells me not to but because I know that could get my employer into trouble. With MIT/BSD you run the risk of someone taking the code and never contributing back. With GPL you run the risk of excluding people from the ability to participate. There is no license that encompasses all rights and freedoms because it's probably impossible to create a set of rules that would encompass everyone. Our freedoms are strangely mutually exclusive in some ways. I think forrestthewoods issue with GPL is that it is toted at 'the' way to preserve freedom - where the truth is that it's the way to preserve one form of freedom. That's why I never, ever, say "freedom" when talking about GPL and rather always say "free as in beer."

djur 12y ago
But you only risk getting your employer into trouble because they're committed to releasing proprietary software. The FSF considers proprietary software evil; the GPL inconveniencing developers of such software is a central goal, not collateral damage. Now, if the concern is that you can't modify a GPLed text editor or compiler or browser or other such tool at your workplace, that shouldn't be an issue. Unless you're releasing modified binaries from GPL code, you are under no obligation to distribute your changes to the source.
- zamalek 12y ago
  > Now, if the concern is that you can't modify a GPLed text editor [...] That is indeed the issue. The concept is that I might read some algorithm or solution as a whole while working with the GPL code. This solution, even if not directly copied, might end up in the code of the proprietary (and patented) product. If prosecuted in America, where the court is interpretive on new issues, this could result in trouble for my employer. Having no previous rulings to go by, there is no way to approximate the outcome of a case such as this and hence looking at GPL code could constitute a risk. A good "inverted" example of this is when Oracle went after Google/Android for supposedly having copied a hashing function. The obvious question and defense is: common data structures have obvious hashing functions and there is a good likelihood of coming with identical or near-identical code, i.e. serendipity.[1] Even though there is no proof that the code was copied, the court ruled in favor of Oracle on the grounds of "structure, sequence and organization of an API is copyrightable." How this applies to GPL code, from my situation, is uncertain. GPL has patent clauses, so it's really risky. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,....
  - monochr 12y ago
    In that case you can't possibly read any code whatsoever. Yet again the GPL does not restrict your freedoms. It just adds to them if you're in the pro-user freedom camp of software development and leaves you no worse off if you don't.
    - 12y ago
aric 12y ago
> With GPL you run the risk of excluding people from the ability to participate. Prohibiting actions and thus excluding people is the point of GPL and most licenses. GPL is a cause. I'll keep reiterating that point. To some people, "freedom" means a WTFPL license. To many GPL users, WTFPL would be antithetical to their pursuit of freedom. Freedom is abstract. Many people feel they must perpetuate certain underlying principles to embody any semblance of freedom. Paraphrasing the views of Free computing advocates: in a world where oppression is normal -- in this case, speaking of any inherent oppression in non-transparent boxes that comprise most of software and hardware today -- one tactic to break the cycle of abuse is by harnessing any available tools of the system (e.g. copyright law). There are various voluntary, peaceful strategies to promote freedom. That's one. Freedom means many things to many people, understandably. To me, GPL does speak to a 'freedom' I want to increase. Personal freedoms of developers and companies [to do whatever they please] is only a secondary concern. Your employer is a secondary concern. Perpetuating transparency in computing is the primary concern.
simonh 12y ago
> The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). >>I actually can't do that with GPL code - not because my employer tells me >>not to but because I know that could get my employer into trouble. This is extremely loose and deceptive talk. That freedom is genuine and valuable. You are talking about something completely different, that has no bearing whatever on freedom 1. The company I work for modifies and revises GPL'd code all the time. It causes us no problems whatsoever, because we don't release or distribute it. Instead we just use it internally for our own purposes. Nothing in the GPL restricts your use, abuse or modification of the code. It only restricts how you can go about sharing and distributing it.
- rbanffy 12y ago
  > It only restricts how you can go about sharing and distributing it. Let me clarify this: the GPL allows you to redistribute your modified version. It only mandates you give your users the same rights you were given, so that they too can study and modify and share their work. You get to stand on the shoulders of giants (for free!), but you have no right to prevent others from doing the same.
  - simonh 12y ago
    Absolutely.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    "but you have no right to prevent others from doing the same" That's not quite right. It's not you have no right to prevent others from doing the same. Neither GPL nor MIT let you stop other people from standing on the same shoulders you stood on. The difference is whether you must let people stand on your shoulders. GPL forces you to open your shoulders. MIT lets you choose to share your shoulders or not.
    - rbanffy 12y ago
      Fair point. You get the right to stand on the shoulders of giants, but you have no right to prevent others from standing on your shoulders as long as you are on the shoulders of giants.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> GPL and copyleft further a cause. It's primarily for increasing user freedom. I don't disagree that that's the intent of the GPL and copyleft; I'm not convinced that (once the pragmatic case for Free software was established), that it is the actual effect of the GPL and copyleft. User freedom is maximized by having the most software available under the least restrictive licenses; copyleft licenses add restrictions with the intent of using those restrictions to compel downstream developers to also release modifications as Free software. However, if there are already pragmatic benefits to releasing Free software, the marginal benefits of those additional restrictions in terms of actually promoting practical user freedom is reduced, while the additional restrictions are, themselves, restrictions that can limit the freedom of users. > You're free to disagree with its agenda. But recognize it as a cause. I can recognize it as being directed at serving a cause and still think it does so poorly. > Basic software dependencies, with few exceptions, are subject to GPL. Why would anyone expect otherwise? Because interoperation with something doesn't make it a derivative work requiring a copyright license usually (though, I suppose, that view of Stallman's is consistent with the still-on-appeal ruling on API copyrights in Oracle v. Google.)