You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?
I feel the same way about the GPL, in that it dictates very strong boundaries about what can and cannot be done with the code you are distributing. I don't personally feel that the tradeoff is acceptable to achieve a goal of preventing corruption, as you say, and it can be argued that the license indeed does prevent many freedoms to do what you will.
If I write software and distribute it as open-source on the Internet, I'm not interested in (a) suing those who don't follow my license to the letter à la gpl-violations.org, and (b) requiring you to release the source code to your product simply because you use mine. For those reasons, I will never apply the GPL to any of the software that I start, period.
It is my not job, as a software developer, to impose my beliefs upon you. The religious fervor in the GPL debates springs an interesting comparison to mind: the GPL is similar to publishing a book about Christ, and requiring those who read it to adopt Christianity. Viral open-source and the majority of the "free software beliefs" are just that, beliefs; I respect everyone's right to believe differently, and I will not mandate a belief in my software.
Why is a negative opinion about the GPL automatically assumed by you to be trolling? It does have flaws, and the GP simply expressed his distaste of them (perhaps not in the best way).
You're being deliberately trollish bringing in religion, it's a dumb insult and I could turn around and call your arguments religious and it wouldn't have any meaning either.
Why is GPL so hard to understand? Plain and simple, GPL is an attack on closed source systems. And if you knew anything about computing history in the last 20 years you should be extremely grateful to RMS and what the license has accomplished.
Because I refuse to walk the party line on Free Software?
> bringing in religion, it's a dumb insult and I could turn around and call your arguments religious and it wouldn't have any meaning either.
How on earth is religion an insult? The proponents of Free Software believe very strongly in Free Software, and fight for it with zeal and fervor. The similarity to religious debates of history is very clear to me.
If anything, I elevated Free Software with the comparison by placing it in a category deserving of special treatment. Every right-thinking country on our planet has figured out that people are going to believe what they're going to believe, and government does not get to dictate what individuals can believe. So it is with the Free Software philosophy -- even if you don't agree with Stallman's philosophy (I only agree with some), you are entitled to believe in it because you have that freedom.
Your implication, which somewhat betrays your personal belief, is that there is a negative connotation that comes with the mere mention of religion, which I find equally offensive.
> Why is GPL so hard to understand? Plain and simple, GPL is an attack on closed source systems.
Maybe. Publishing your source in the public domain is also an attack on closed-source systems. The binary attitude of proponents of Free Software is something that I wince at every time I see it demonstrated.
> And if you knew anything about computing history in the last 20 years
You're right, my opinion obviously implies that I'm a moron. How dare I speak up about an opinion?
> you should be extremely grateful to RMS and what the license has accomplished.
I don't owe Free Software, or Richard Stallman, anything. Whatever advances have been made in computing, Free Software didn't wander into my life and make me who I am. It made computing what it is.
That being said, I am aware of what the GPL and the GNU Project itself was designed to do, and what it did. I firmly believe that without the GNU Project, we'd be in a much different place than we are today with computing. I have tremendous respect for Richard Stallman, and merely disagree with some of his tenets. I would hope that he respects my disagreement, and would be willing to try to convince me of his beliefs if given the opportunity (no, no comparison to religion there).
Just like you are allowed to believe in Free Software, so I am allowed to disagree with some of Stallman's beliefs, and I am allowed to choose not to use the GPL. My desire to not use the GPL is not an automatic admitting that I'm history-dumb and have no idea of its purpose, intent, or legacy.
The point is that it does take away some freedoms, that the BSD license does not take away.
This keeps getting brought up because people say that the GPL is about "freedom" when the freedom it guarantees is rather explicitly freedom for the code itself at the expense of some of the users of the software. The BSD license does not take away these freedoms of the user - users can pass on the same code to other users with significantly more restriction, but the BSD License itself does not take away those freedoms.
It keeps coming up because its frustrating to hear people making emotional appeals to "freedom" instead of acknowledging the tradeoff for code freedom instead of human freedom they make. Its not that the choice itself is bad, its that not acknowledging it explicitly is disingenuous.
And if you criticize it in even the lightest way, the religious fervor I mentioned before brings every free software supporter out to impale you. I can't tell you how many times I've been called a corporate shill or, quote, "M$ fanboi" because I don't agree with the GPL on principle.
This thread has devolved into the same kind of thing, and to be honest, I'm surprised I'm still participating in it. Just watching the karma on my previous comments swing wildly back and forth has been enough of an amusement this morning.
I don't begrudge anybody their beliefs, but holy cow, give me the same respect.
Could you rephrase that in terms that aren't nonsensical in the context of software licensing, such as "bring down the system" and "prevents corruption"?
There's free for whom/what:
- the developer's freedom
- the user's freedom
... and there are also multiple time-scales of "free" (much as there are multiple timescales of "wealthy"):
- free for me proximally (when I've already got the code)
- free for me in the more distant future (when I might not)
For users, the GPL ensures both free-now and free-later.
For developers, one could argue that the GPL makes the trade-off of reduced freedom now (freedom to do what you want with the code you've currently got) for more freedom later (freedom here to at least get the code and then do what you want with it).
The strong case-in-point here is when a developer modifies some code, and then releases it, and would like to have the freedom to later build on contributions by others.
Is the trade-off worth it? This is now something of an empirical question.
I was not trolling. The GPL nominally stands for freedom but yet the means by which it forces restrictions is the opposite of freedom. I say if you want people to do something, do so by setting an example, not by writing weasel-worded legalese that ties peoples hands. Write code, release it under MIT, and let people do what they want with your code, and by doing that you're setting an example and encouraging others to do the same. You'll also encourage participation by businesses who would like to make use of your code in their proprietary system and everyone benefits when they contribute back because they don't have to worry about the stringent restrictions of the GPL.
Share-Alike licenses like the GNU GPL are excellent licenses and are worthy of consideration for whole categories of software.
What they aren't, however, is 'free' by any rational or sane definition of the word. They impose restrictions -- and carry those restrictions downstream -- on the use of the software that increases the theoretical range of people who would do things with the software. But those restrictions in and of themselves do not increase "freedom" for anyone.
Like I said, there's good reasons to choose these sorts of licenses. What I object to are the semantic games and occasionally outright lies and histrionics of GNU GPL supporters.
So maybe it would be nice if they wrote up an essay somewhere detailing exactly what they mean by "freedom" so that no one gets confused. Maybe they could call it the "The Free Software Definition".
I'll leave aside the issue of whether or not this matches what you consider a "rational" or "sane" definition of "free" and just point out that it makes pretty good sense to me.
Because freedom also means freedom to use my code and keep it to yourself if you want to. There isn't any corruption in that. Tons of software here are using bsd/mit licensed code and not releasing their change, that has nothing to do with corruption (or you don't understand what corruption is, go read a definition).
Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is under gpl too. You lose your freedom to chose a license. You lose your freedom to keep changes to yourself if you release the resulting binary (why ? because you want to). You lose your freedom to use other piece of code that are not gpl compatible.
I have nothing against the gpl and I use tons of software using it, but it is a fact that it cuts down some of your freedoms compared to other licenses.
The GPL does _NOT_ prevent redistribution, please don't spread more incorrect information. It prevents _redistribution without redistribution of source_. You're still free to get GPL code, change it yourself, and never release it again.
Licenses like the AGPL were created in part because of this problem; some folks think that, morally speaking, code running on a server behaves like distributed code, and should be available. But for example: you're absolutely allowed to take GPL code, change it yourself, keep the source private, and run a web 2.0 business on top of that source code.
Where in my message did I say it prevented redistribution ? Can you quote the sentence that made you understand that ? (this is a serious question)
It's not what I meant, and I don't thing it's what I've written either. If anything, it actually forces redistribution in case some might not want to (when you release a binary but want the sources to remain yours).
"Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is under gpl too. You lose your freedom to chose a license. You lose your freedom to keep changes to yourself if you release the resulting binary (why ? because you want to). You lose your freedom to use other piece of code that are not gpl compatible."
You never had any of those freedoms because the code is not yours. Your point is correct (yes, the GPL does prevent you from stealing other people's work!), but your wording is FUD.
You can modify GPL code and keep it to yourself. What you can't do is modify it and distribute the resultant binary without also releasing the modified source.
