> People make the example about killing because there are the conflicting freedoms of two people involved: the killer and the victim. And people make that example as if the GPLs restrictions always involved such a conflict. This is not true.
What about the developer vs the user? That's the very conflict we're discussing here.
> The GPLs limit my freedom to do things that are not an attack on others' freedoms.
That depends on what you believe my freedoms are. I believe that I should have the source of anything I run; in such a case you withholding source from me is an attack on my freedom.
> For example, the freedom to combine and redistribute GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. Or the freedom to share a binary with someone who needs it, without forcefully bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code (which that someone likely didn't ask for, doesn't need, and doesn't want to have). The alternative of providing a written offer for the source code (valid for years) can be unacceptable for me because I cannot promise to meet such a requirement -- it makes helping people out potentially very expensive and painful. Therefore my options are to 1) violate the license and lose my freedoms as per the GPLv2 death clause, or 2) not share with the person in need.
Two points:
1) Noöne is forcing you to use the GPL for your own work. While I would find it preferable, I would never force you to; I would simply choose not to use your software if you weren't making the source available (which you need not to under certain licenses).
2) I do not view "bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code" as a bad thing, and certainly not an excuse to not use the GPL.
> It's useless to make a coherent rebuttal because GPL fanatics
Thank you for the ad hominem
> incoherent arguments about users versus developers' freedoms.
You've yet to establish that the argument is incoherent, probably because, based on your first few sentences, you somehow don't believe it exists.
> Oh yeah, my freedom to help a friend is a developer freedom, and therefore does not matter.
You're not helping them if you're not providing the source in my opinion. You're simply band-aiding a problem at best and forcing complacency against usage of their own device at worst.
> Me wanting to help a friend is like wanting to kill somebody.
Again, I've literally never said this, nor implied it.
> The society is better off without letting me do such evil.
No, society is better off with people like you who have do believe in sharing your source, but are put off by some of the issues with the GPL. (Yes, I did just say the GPL isn't perfect.)
Society is not better off when someone takes previously free code, makes it unfree, and then proceeds to use it to lock users into their system.
> If you think this is freedom, you have such a twisted and distorted understanding of the word that you're as good as a cultist.
Thank you again for the ad hominem and hyperbole that really don't make much sense.
No, that's the false dicothomy GPL proponents keep bringing up. The freedom to modify code and the freedom to distribute the software (modified or not), is something you claim to be trying to be protecting for the users' sake, but as soon as I try to exercise these freedoms, you call me a developer and a distributor. If one can't exercise these freedoms without being labelled as such, these aren't user freedoms at all. But for me, as a user, the freedom to share (modified or not) software with other users is a very important way to help others out, and you people keep telling me there's a conflict in that.
> I believe that I should have the source of anything I run; in such a case you withholding source from me is an attack on my freedom.
Strawman argument. I'm discussing the scenario where I help people out by giving them software they need, and ask for. I'm not withholding anything, but if they're not requesting the source code, I'm not going to make life inconvenient for both of us by forcing it on them anyway. And just because I can help someone out at time t doesn't mean I can promise to give them the source code years after. It just doesn't work that way. Not making such a promise, however, is very different from "withholding source", which is the straw man you're making.
> Two points
1) Yes, I can choose to use whatever license I like for my own software. That has nothing to do with this discussion. Dismissed.
2) Then you do not understand what problems people have in the real world. If their system is broken and I'm giving them a file to fix that, I'd be very much of a douchebag to force them to download a potentially large archive full of source they don't need. Then tell them to download the tools to extract it (on their system that desperately needs help). Then tell them to remove all that crap so they can get just that one file they needed.
Likewise it would be very sad if I had to tell them that no, I cannot help you now by giving this file because I would need to find and download the source for it (the binary might've been compiled years ago).
Why do you have to oblige me with crap that doesn't help me nor the person I'm helping? And you are calling that freedom? No, it's not. And this "freedom" is the very reason I really don't help people much these days, or if I do, I do it either illegally or with truly free software, not this fake kind of free that tells me to bugger off should I dare share.
> You're not helping them if you're not providing the source in my opinion. You're simply band-aiding a problem at best and forcing complacency against usage of their own device at worst.
Your opinions don't fix people's software problems. Sometimes, files might. But there we go. Someone needs help, I help him, and the GPL fanatics say, oh look, clarry just almost slaved and murdered somebody because he didn't suffocate that poor fellow with a truckload of source code. So evil. The person who was helped thanks me and I might give him a tip as to how to avoid the problem in the future. Sure sure, you think I'm not helping him. He should just move to the first world and get a broadband so he can afford to download, who knows, maybe dozens or even hundreds of megabytes of source he doesn't need? And of course I'm responsible for finding and distributing all that, with my not-so-fast line. You think I'm not helping, I think you're insane. What ad hominem?
What about the developer vs the user? That's the very conflict we're discussing here.
> The GPLs limit my freedom to do things that are not an attack on others' freedoms.
That depends on what you believe my freedoms are. I believe that I should have the source of anything I run; in such a case you withholding source from me is an attack on my freedom.
> For example, the freedom to combine and redistribute GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. Or the freedom to share a binary with someone who needs it, without forcefully bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code (which that someone likely didn't ask for, doesn't need, and doesn't want to have). The alternative of providing a written offer for the source code (valid for years) can be unacceptable for me because I cannot promise to meet such a requirement -- it makes helping people out potentially very expensive and painful. Therefore my options are to 1) violate the license and lose my freedoms as per the GPLv2 death clause, or 2) not share with the person in need.
Two points:
1) Noöne is forcing you to use the GPL for your own work. While I would find it preferable, I would never force you to; I would simply choose not to use your software if you weren't making the source available (which you need not to under certain licenses).
2) I do not view "bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code" as a bad thing, and certainly not an excuse to not use the GPL.
> It's useless to make a coherent rebuttal because GPL fanatics
Thank you for the ad hominem
> incoherent arguments about users versus developers' freedoms.
You've yet to establish that the argument is incoherent, probably because, based on your first few sentences, you somehow don't believe it exists.
> Oh yeah, my freedom to help a friend is a developer freedom, and therefore does not matter.
You're not helping them if you're not providing the source in my opinion. You're simply band-aiding a problem at best and forcing complacency against usage of their own device at worst.
> Me wanting to help a friend is like wanting to kill somebody.
Again, I've literally never said this, nor implied it.
> The society is better off without letting me do such evil.
No, society is better off with people like you who have do believe in sharing your source, but are put off by some of the issues with the GPL. (Yes, I did just say the GPL isn't perfect.)
Society is not better off when someone takes previously free code, makes it unfree, and then proceeds to use it to lock users into their system.
> If you think this is freedom, you have such a twisted and distorted understanding of the word that you're as good as a cultist.
Thank you again for the ad hominem and hyperbole that really don't make much sense.