If a middleman takes your code, compiles it, and then distributes it to the user, then that user has no access to the source code to the version installed on their system. This is one of the events the GPL is designed to guard against.
In an ideal world, everybody would provide their users the same rights they received from the copyright holder. The only licenses required would be MIT/BSD style. I would love this; a simple license, in my opinion, is better than the enormous complexity of the GPL. However, since in the real world people can and do restrict user's rights to source code, the GPL is still needed.
If a middleman takes your code, compiles it, and then distributes it to the user, then that user has no access to the source code to the version installed on their system.
So? The user can get the original code from me. They can't get what the "hostile" middle man added to the code, but that's OK, because I didn't write that -- they did.
However, chances are good that the "hostile" middle man is providing a service that the user wants, and they don't consider him to be hostile at all. I'm quite happy that Apple takes BSD licensed code (some of which is my own) and produces an operating system that I find to be incredibly valuable in my day to day work.
I'm happy to disclaim access to source code, and provide Apple with some money for this service.
But wouldn't it kind of be the user's own fault if he installs software he doesn't see the source for? Also, how would the GPL protect the user, if the criminal does not mind doing illegal things anyway (like distributing malicious software)?
But wouldn't it kind of be the user's own fault if he installs software he doesn't see the source for?
I don't believe that blaming the victim is a healthy attitude to life. "The rape was her fault for wearing those clothes" is for banana republics and history books, not modern times.
Also, how would the GPL protect the user, if the criminal does not mind doing illegal things anyway (like distributing malicious software)?
I didn't say it was a criminal act, and the software does not have to be malicious. Assuming the middleman makes any change at all, no matter to what purpose, then the user no longer has access to the source code for the application they're running. In my opinion, this is unacceptable, and I try to avoid contributing to software under a license which allows proprietary distribution.
I don't believe that blaming the victim is a healthy attitude to life. "The rape was her fault for wearing those clothes" is for banana republics and history books, not modern times.
I am not a victim. I am willfully and with full knowledge of the implications entering into an economic exchange that I believe to be of benefit to myself.
I hit the wrong arrow and upvoted this turkey when I meant to downvote it. Most problems are the "victims" own fault. Unless someone is the victim of a totally unexpected attack, eg 9/11, he at least assisted in his own problems and often enough caused them entirely on his own.
EDIT: By "turkey" I meant the statement about "blaming the victim" which is repeated over and over in all sorts of contexts and is usually mindless PC-speak. I have yet to see it defended except by screeching and name-calling.
So the car manufacturer is responsible for the thief stealing the car? I don't think the comparison to the rape victim applies here. If somebody chooses to jump into an abyss, it seems fair to blame them for the consequences.
I thought about it before your response, and I admit, there is that one way by which I might help people receiving bad software: by not using GPL I support a world in which unfree software could possibly exist.
However, for myself it seems sufficient to work towards a world in which everybody has the opportunity to use free software if they want to. Suppose I would be giving away free cars - a thief could still steal a car, but since he could just get one for free anyway, his incentives for stealing a car would be far less. Creating a world in which nobody would even be allowed to create unfree software seems unnecessarily restrictive to me, and in fact, undesirable. By consequence other possibly dangerous things would have to be made illegal, too. Eventually the whole world would be Disneyland - not something I would want.
Edit: to clarify, I agree that some of these things are personal preferences, so I understand how choosing MIT license is a political decision, too.
In an ideal world, everybody would provide their users the same rights they received from the copyright holder. The only licenses required would be MIT/BSD style. I would love this; a simple license, in my opinion, is better than the enormous complexity of the GPL. However, since in the real world people can and do restrict user's rights to source code, the GPL is still needed.