4 ms·

> Yeah, and because of the additional restrictions of GPL, big companies are simply avoiding it or writing software to replace it. Sure, and my point was to an

by jbk 11y ago

> Yeah, and because of the additional restrictions of GPL, big companies are simply avoiding it or writing software to replace it. Sure, and my point was to answer the parent about what freedom does the GPL grant to the users. Your point is interesting, but is totally besides what I was saying, or the parent.

epistasis 11y ago
No, his point was exactly why I don't believe that permissive licenses are any worse at perpetuating user freedom than coercive licenses like the GPL: when one feels coerced by a license, the option is to just not take it at all. Whereas with a permissive license, one is far more likely to take it initially, and then perhaps share alike afterwards. Those who wouldn't share under a permissive license wouldn't accept the GPL to start with, so what additional user freedom can the GPL possibly create in the world that's not already there with permissive licenses?
- jbk 11y ago
  You are speaking of feelings, I speak about facts and what's actually written in the license: the GPL forbids restricting the freedom to use, even when redistributing; the other licenses don't. This is a clear user freedom that is guaranteed by the GPL.
  - epistasis 11y ago
    Feelings are incredibly important around these things! Dismissing them as unimportant misses a huge part of humanity, and of freedom itself.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    >This is a clear user freedom that is guaranteed by the GPL. Yes, and that freedom is being guaranteed to fewer and fewer end users of GPLed software because of those feelings you're dismissing. Linux is probably the success story for GPL, and even in that case Google has bundled it with proprietary software (Android now outnumbers all other operating system installs, IIRC). Yes people can make their own distributions, but they're for the most part irrelevant to 99% of users of Android devices. Probably 99.99% if you include people who never install Google proprietary apps (the Play Store; Google Maps; etc.) on their devices. The point of GPL wasn't to serve the 1%, but to expand software freedoms to everyone. To start a revolution in software, and to supplant closed source and restrictive licenses. Look around, though; most people are ignoring what freedoms they are offered and basking in proprietary software options. Open source is beautiful when it works. But freedom to redistribute something without value is about as relevant as debating whether a tree falling alone in a forest makes a noise.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
> but is totally besides what I was saying, or the parent. No, it's not. GPL is only relevant if it can grant freedom to modify software that's relevant. Freedom to modify something you don't really want to use has no value.
- jbk 11y ago
  The parents speaks about USER freedom, not about developers or redistributors. You argue that freedom of developers is more important, and that's fine. But don't say that the GPL does not guarantee more user freedom.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    I think you're talking past each other. The GPL only guarantees user freedoms if you're a user of software licensed under the GPL. If you're using non-GPL software, then the GPL's protections don't matter. If GPL software isn't as good as non-GPL software (for many different, sometimes conflicting definitions of good), it will have fewer users and thus the GPL will provide freedoms to fewer users.
    - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
      Thank you.

by jbk 11y ago

epistasis 11y ago

No, his point was exactly why I don't believe that permissive licenses are any worse at perpetuating user freedom than coercive licenses like the GPL: when one feels coerced by a license, the option is to just not take it at all. Whereas with a permissive license, one is far more likely to take it initially, and then perhaps share alike afterwards. Those who wouldn't share under a permissive license wouldn't accept the GPL to start with, so what additional user freedom can the GPL possibly create in the world that's not already there with permissive licenses?

jbk 11y ago
You are speaking of feelings, I speak about facts and what's actually written in the license: the GPL forbids restricting the freedom to use, even when redistributing; the other licenses don't. This is a clear user freedom that is guaranteed by the GPL.
- epistasis 11y ago
  Feelings are incredibly important around these things! Dismissing them as unimportant misses a huge part of humanity, and of freedom itself.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  >This is a clear user freedom that is guaranteed by the GPL. Yes, and that freedom is being guaranteed to fewer and fewer end users of GPLed software because of those feelings you're dismissing. Linux is probably the success story for GPL, and even in that case Google has bundled it with proprietary software (Android now outnumbers all other operating system installs, IIRC). Yes people can make their own distributions, but they're for the most part irrelevant to 99% of users of Android devices. Probably 99.99% if you include people who never install Google proprietary apps (the Play Store; Google Maps; etc.) on their devices. The point of GPL wasn't to serve the 1%, but to expand software freedoms to everyone. To start a revolution in software, and to supplant closed source and restrictive licenses. Look around, though; most people are ignoring what freedoms they are offered and basking in proprietary software options. Open source is beautiful when it works. But freedom to redistribute something without value is about as relevant as debating whether a tree falling alone in a forest makes a noise.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago

> but is totally besides what I was saying, or the parent. No, it's not. GPL is only relevant if it can grant freedom to modify software that's relevant. Freedom to modify something you don't really want to use has no value.

jbk 11y ago
The parents speaks about USER freedom, not about developers or redistributors. You argue that freedom of developers is more important, and that's fine. But don't say that the GPL does not guarantee more user freedom.
- cwyers 11y ago
  I think you're talking past each other. The GPL only guarantees user freedoms if you're a user of software licensed under the GPL. If you're using non-GPL software, then the GPL's protections don't matter. If GPL software isn't as good as non-GPL software (for many different, sometimes conflicting definitions of good), it will have fewer users and thus the GPL will provide freedoms to fewer users.
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    Thank you.