4 ms·

Restrictive in that it prevents you from fucking people over. This is like saying laws against slavery restrict freedom (freedom to own slaves). https://www.gn

by cgag 12y ago

Restrictive in that it prevents you from fucking people over. This is like saying laws against slavery restrict freedom (freedom to own slaves). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html

meepmorp 12y ago
> Restrictive in that it prevents you from fucking people over. Restrictive in that it controls how you must license derivative works and release source code. It imposes an ideology on others. > This is like saying laws against slavery restrict freedom (freedom to own slaves). No, really, it's absolutely nothing like saying that, and if you care about free software (however defined, but in particular along the lines RMS endorses), you should stop using such a fantastically stupid analogy.
- danbruc 12y ago
  If you build something you should definitely have something to say about what others can do with your work, especially if you give it away for free. And nobody imposes something on you - you are perfectly free not to use GNU licensed things.
  - meepmorp 12y ago
    I don't recall arguing otherwise. But compared to the BSD license, it's definitely more restrictive about derivative works. Also, the slavery analogy is stupid.
    - SquidMagnet 12y ago
      I think it would be helpful to be clearer as to why you disagree with the analogy rather than simply calling it stupid. If I had to guess, I would suspect that your real issue is that you do not find the things being restricted to be comparable (i.e., human life/will vs. the use of software), rather than believing that the comparison is somehow invalid for other reasons.
      - jakobegger 12y ago
        First of all, it's not a good analogy. Software licenses are a contract that you can choose to agree to, whereas laws give you no choice. Second of all, it is highly debated wheter the restrictions imposed by the GPL are a worthwhile tradeoff; while noone in their right mind claims anybody has a right to own slaves... And lastly, by comparing the GPL to laws against slavery you are trying to evoke certain associations, much like stallman uses the word swindle instead of kindle -- those are just cheap tricks that distract and make fruitful discussions hard.
        chaosfactor 12y ago
        The slavery analogy holds because in both cases we are talking about freedom. A word you aren't using.
- SquidMagnet 12y ago
  Really, the only thing the GPL restricts is your ability to restrict. (Incidentally, this is comparable to restricting the freedom to enslave; it is a restriction on restriction.) If you think the GPL somehow "imposes an ideology on others" but literally any other license does not, I am curious as to how. (Hint: a license cannot "impose an ideology"; if you do not agree, you are free to avoid it and stick with BSD code, or whatever else might suit your fancy.)
- eveningcoffee 12y ago
  I think you are free to not to use GPL libraries. Your options are at least as: 1) acquire a licence of some commercial library, 2) use library with different open source licence, 3) develop your own library.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    Whereas you are forced to use an Amazon Kindle (sorry, Swindle)? Your options there are similar, acquire a license for a commercial book (that you like), hit Project Gutenberg for an open source book, or write your own book...
forthefuture 12y ago
That's a strawman. It could also be like saying laws against gay marriage restrict freedom. You aren't making a point about reality, you're just comparing two things that have one thing in common. You lose your rights to your code if any of your code includes GPL code. Many people who write code necessarily avoid the GPL because of this.
- fixxer 12y ago
  > That's a strawman We need a hotkey for that one.
- sp332 12y ago
  You don't lose the rights to your code. The original copyright owner still owns the copyright on their code. That's why you have to follow the rules of the license they gave you. You can still distribute your code under whatever license you want.
  - Guvante 12y ago
    > You can still distribute your code under whatever license you want. That actually isn't true. > You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. You are required to distribute it under GPL v3. I don't know enough legalese to determine if distributing the modifications alone as a parallel license is allowed.
    - sp332 12y ago
      This is only true if "your" code is a derivative of someone else's code. Putting code that's actually original into a project that also has GPL code in it doesn't mean you have to GPL your code. Distributing binaries with mixed sources is where it gets hairy.
    - cma 12y ago
      A parallel license is allowed, if you remove any third party GPL'd code.
- 12y ago
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>This is like saying laws against slavery restrict freedom (freedom to own slaves). They do. Because at current, corporations (aka private prisons) are allowed to own slaves, but I as an individual am not. We can either increase freedom by banning anyone from owning slaves or increase freedom by allowing anyone to own slaves.
- dkuntz2 12y ago
  Actually, allowing anyone to own slaves is not an increase in freedoms, it's a net decrease in freedom.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    As long as the number of current slaves does not increase (anymore than it would have anyways), it would lead to more freedom.

by cgag 12y ago

meepmorp 12y ago

> Restrictive in that it prevents you from fucking people over. Restrictive in that it controls how you must license derivative works and release source code. It imposes an ideology on others. > This is like saying laws against slavery restrict freedom (freedom to own slaves). No, really, it's absolutely nothing like saying that, and if you care about free software (however defined, but in particular along the lines RMS endorses), you should stop using such a fantastically stupid analogy.

danbruc 12y ago
If you build something you should definitely have something to say about what others can do with your work, especially if you give it away for free. And nobody imposes something on you - you are perfectly free not to use GNU licensed things.
- meepmorp 12y ago
  I don't recall arguing otherwise. But compared to the BSD license, it's definitely more restrictive about derivative works. Also, the slavery analogy is stupid.
  - SquidMagnet 12y ago
    I think it would be helpful to be clearer as to why you disagree with the analogy rather than simply calling it stupid. If I had to guess, I would suspect that your real issue is that you do not find the things being restricted to be comparable (i.e., human life/will vs. the use of software), rather than believing that the comparison is somehow invalid for other reasons.
    - jakobegger 12y ago
      First of all, it's not a good analogy. Software licenses are a contract that you can choose to agree to, whereas laws give you no choice. Second of all, it is highly debated wheter the restrictions imposed by the GPL are a worthwhile tradeoff; while noone in their right mind claims anybody has a right to own slaves... And lastly, by comparing the GPL to laws against slavery you are trying to evoke certain associations, much like stallman uses the word swindle instead of kindle -- those are just cheap tricks that distract and make fruitful discussions hard.
      - chaosfactor 12y ago
        The slavery analogy holds because in both cases we are talking about freedom. A word you aren't using.
SquidMagnet 12y ago
Really, the only thing the GPL restricts is your ability to restrict. (Incidentally, this is comparable to restricting the freedom to enslave; it is a restriction on restriction.) If you think the GPL somehow "imposes an ideology on others" but literally any other license does not, I am curious as to how. (Hint: a license cannot "impose an ideology"; if you do not agree, you are free to avoid it and stick with BSD code, or whatever else might suit your fancy.)
eveningcoffee 12y ago
I think you are free to not to use GPL libraries. Your options are at least as: 1) acquire a licence of some commercial library, 2) use library with different open source licence, 3) develop your own library.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  Whereas you are forced to use an Amazon Kindle (sorry, Swindle)? Your options there are similar, acquire a license for a commercial book (that you like), hit Project Gutenberg for an open source book, or write your own book...

forthefuture 12y ago

That's a strawman. It could also be like saying laws against gay marriage restrict freedom. You aren't making a point about reality, you're just comparing two things that have one thing in common. You lose your rights to your code if any of your code includes GPL code. Many people who write code necessarily avoid the GPL because of this.

fixxer 12y ago
> That's a strawman We need a hotkey for that one.
sp332 12y ago
You don't lose the rights to your code. The original copyright owner still owns the copyright on their code. That's why you have to follow the rules of the license they gave you. You can still distribute your code under whatever license you want.
- Guvante 12y ago
  > You can still distribute your code under whatever license you want. That actually isn't true. > You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. You are required to distribute it under GPL v3. I don't know enough legalese to determine if distributing the modifications alone as a parallel license is allowed.
  - sp332 12y ago
    This is only true if "your" code is a derivative of someone else's code. Putting code that's actually original into a project that also has GPL code in it doesn't mean you have to GPL your code. Distributing binaries with mixed sources is where it gets hairy.
  - cma 12y ago
    A parallel license is allowed, if you remove any third party GPL'd code.
12y ago

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

>This is like saying laws against slavery restrict freedom (freedom to own slaves). They do. Because at current, corporations (aka private prisons) are allowed to own slaves, but I as an individual am not. We can either increase freedom by banning anyone from owning slaves or increase freedom by allowing anyone to own slaves.

dkuntz2 12y ago
Actually, allowing anyone to own slaves is not an increase in freedoms, it's a net decrease in freedom.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  As long as the number of current slaves does not increase (anymore than it would have anyways), it would lead to more freedom.