4 ms·

The GNU license doesn't sound very "free" to me. It's strange that the owners of GNU code think that all additions to their code should rightly be released to

The GNU license doesn't sound very "free" to me. It's strange that the owners of GNU code think that all additions to their code should rightly be released to the public (even if they never wrote the additions). The original code is still "free" for the world to use, so there really isn't anything being taken.

s73v3r 12y ago
If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?
- MaulingMonkey 12y ago
  > Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions? I don't see where paulhauggis is claiming he's entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions. Can you point out that claim explicitly for me? (edit: removed a stray nonsensical "it" for clarity) > If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. This is what I generally do when it comes to GPLed libraries. Even closed source APIs generally grant me more "freedom" as a developer in how I redistribute my own programs invoking those APIs. But hey, it's their right to release GPLed software. I make use of some GPLed software (generally only as a user, not a developer) and thank their developers for their contributions. ...but I don't think it's outrageous to find their definition of "free" a little odd, I get why it can be hard to follow their line of reasoning, and don't see the harm in trying to dig into the reasoning behind using the GPL over, say, a more permissive license such as MIT. Personally, I'm more inclined to release under permissive licenses - but this is your chance to convince paulhauggis of the merits of the former, no?
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get companies to use the code for free and then get bitten in the ass in the end by having to release proprietary code. Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and "stealing" are used by many. However, when we are talking about copyright infringement, I am instantly corrected when I try to use those words to describe essentially the exact same practice?? (people here have even said it is their 'right' to freely copy copyrighted material). "If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?" So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act. The GNU is just Stallman's attempt to destroy the commercial software industry, tie up our courts with ridiculous GNU violations, and essentially socialize it (a few years back, he had goals of the GNU and one of them is to have a 'compliance officer' mandated by the government in each company). I'm glad most of these attempts have failed.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    GNU licenses don't exist to be "lures". They exist to make it difficult to be parasitic to the open source world. Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      Eh, what? Because 'free software with commercial support offering' is not 'commercial software. Your claim is "Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. If commercial software can't function without being free, then that's its problem" - where one is the very exact opposite of the other. "He doesn't want to kill it. But if it can't survive without being something it's inherently the opposite of, well, that's not us seeking its death, but rather 'a problem of their business model'." Hmm.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Implicit is that I believe commercial software can exist while still being free.
        FireBeyond 12y ago
        How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)
        Kalium 12y ago
        I consider commercial support a business model for commercial software. Commercial software does not have to mean non-free proprietary software.
        lazylizard 12y ago
        but what do redhat,suse, joyent, docker sell?
robmccoll 12y ago
I don't think it works that way. I believe the GPL stipulates that you must make your source code available to any party to which you distribute your binary. If you are using a modifying GPL code internal to your organization but not giving the any of the compiled binaries to anyone, you are under no obligation to release the code.
arfar 12y ago
You and all of the "Free Software" world have different definitions on free. I'd recommend this[1] talk by Richard Stallman, it's pretty basic, but it gets the idea across well. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM
TallGuyShort 12y ago
They way I view it, GPL is free provided it's the status quo for everything to be "free software", and it is the goal of GNU to make such a world. BSD / ASL is is free in the mixed environment that is our current reality. I admire the idealism of the GPL and believe it has achieved much. But for getting work done right now, I find the BSD / ASL is more appropriate. edit: side note - I know many customers are very happy to adopt BSD / ASL software, but more hesitant to adopt GPL because not everything they do can or will be open-source. If, one day, everyone is using like BSD or ASL or GPL, switching to an all GPL world becomes more feasible.
belorn 12y ago
Every day I enjoy being "free" by not getting stolen from, since thievery is restricted by my government. I also enjoy that every driver is restricted by rules on the road, as I can walk "freely" without being crushed. I can do so many things in my life, and most of them would not be possible without the massive number of restrictions that is put on people around me. I only wish more people could be this free.
- mikerichards 12y ago
  Those restrictions don't guarantee any of those freedoms.

s73v3r 12y ago

If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?

MaulingMonkey 12y ago
> Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions? I don't see where paulhauggis is claiming he's entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions. Can you point out that claim explicitly for me? (edit: removed a stray nonsensical "it" for clarity) > If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. This is what I generally do when it comes to GPLed libraries. Even closed source APIs generally grant me more "freedom" as a developer in how I redistribute my own programs invoking those APIs. But hey, it's their right to release GPLed software. I make use of some GPLed software (generally only as a user, not a developer) and thank their developers for their contributions. ...but I don't think it's outrageous to find their definition of "free" a little odd, I get why it can be hard to follow their line of reasoning, and don't see the harm in trying to dig into the reasoning behind using the GPL over, say, a more permissive license such as MIT. Personally, I'm more inclined to release under permissive licenses - but this is your chance to convince paulhauggis of the merits of the former, no?
paulhauggis 12y ago
This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get companies to use the code for free and then get bitten in the ass in the end by having to release proprietary code. Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and "stealing" are used by many. However, when we are talking about copyright infringement, I am instantly corrected when I try to use those words to describe essentially the exact same practice?? (people here have even said it is their 'right' to freely copy copyrighted material). "If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?" So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act. The GNU is just Stallman's attempt to destroy the commercial software industry, tie up our courts with ridiculous GNU violations, and essentially socialize it (a few years back, he had goals of the GNU and one of them is to have a 'compliance officer' mandated by the government in each company). I'm glad most of these attempts have failed.
- Kalium 12y ago
  GNU licenses don't exist to be "lures". They exist to make it difficult to be parasitic to the open source world. Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    Eh, what? Because 'free software with commercial support offering' is not 'commercial software. Your claim is "Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. If commercial software can't function without being free, then that's its problem" - where one is the very exact opposite of the other. "He doesn't want to kill it. But if it can't survive without being something it's inherently the opposite of, well, that's not us seeking its death, but rather 'a problem of their business model'." Hmm.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Implicit is that I believe commercial software can exist while still being free.
      - FireBeyond 12y ago
        How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)
        Kalium 12y ago
        I consider commercial support a business model for commercial software. Commercial software does not have to mean non-free proprietary software.
        lazylizard 12y ago
        but what do redhat,suse, joyent, docker sell?

robmccoll 12y ago

I don't think it works that way. I believe the GPL stipulates that you must make your source code available to any party to which you distribute your binary. If you are using a modifying GPL code internal to your organization but not giving the any of the compiled binaries to anyone, you are under no obligation to release the code.

arfar 12y ago

You and all of the "Free Software" world have different definitions on free. I'd recommend this[1] talk by Richard Stallman, it's pretty basic, but it gets the idea across well. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM

TallGuyShort 12y ago

They way I view it, GPL is free provided it's the status quo for everything to be "free software", and it is the goal of GNU to make such a world. BSD / ASL is is free in the mixed environment that is our current reality. I admire the idealism of the GPL and believe it has achieved much. But for getting work done right now, I find the BSD / ASL is more appropriate. edit: side note - I know many customers are very happy to adopt BSD / ASL software, but more hesitant to adopt GPL because not everything they do can or will be open-source. If, one day, everyone is using like BSD or ASL or GPL, switching to an all GPL world becomes more feasible.

belorn 12y ago

Every day I enjoy being "free" by not getting stolen from, since thievery is restricted by my government. I also enjoy that every driver is restricted by rules on the road, as I can walk "freely" without being crushed. I can do so many things in my life, and most of them would not be possible without the massive number of restrictions that is put on people around me. I only wish more people could be this free.

mikerichards 12y ago
Those restrictions don't guarantee any of those freedoms.