Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on April 23, 2002 11:58 PM
"In reality thats just bullshit. The problem you see is that the first customer just uploads the whole thing (binary+source) so that anyone can download it. This is what makes GPL-covered software impossible to sell."
Your first point is true, but the second point is not connected to it. It is quite possible to sell copies of GPL'ed software and companies currently do that. Proprietary software and holding distribution rights to the software does not make it unsalable.
There's a gigantic warez community out there that operates relatively in the open and that hasn't stopped proprietary companies from cleaning house.
The "redistribution makes it impossible to sell" argument is a straw man argument.
"The purpose of the GPL is to advance the cause of socialism (sharing economy). The GPL has written by the free software foundation, not the open source community. The open source community is not a politial one but basically what you describe but they did not write the GPL. The free software foundation is a fully political movement that aims at removing ownership."
Actually, that's not entirely true.
The GNU GPL operates on the basis of ownership. Without ownership, the GNU GPL can't function.
Rather, it is proprietary companies that seek to remove ownership rights from the public, by licensing everything to them. In that system, there is no ownership. In the GNU GPL method - ownership rights are retained ultimately.
Don't turn this into something it's not. Comparing the GNU GPL to socialism (which is a system of government that seeks to provide base living capabilities to all people in the nation) is not an accurate comparison.
Also, while the Free Software and Open Source movement are as you represent them (Free Software political, Open Source apathetic) the communities often overlap and both communities accept each other's licenses more often than not.
Surely, there are open source licenses that are not Free Software licenses, but the Open Source community has openly accepted the GNU GPL. The very people who wrote the Open Source definition based most of that definition off of the values stated in the GNU GPL, and list it as a seminal document. To regard it as anything less is to give a revisionist version of history.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:an idea?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 23, 2002 11:58 PMYour first point is true, but the second point is not connected to it. It is quite possible to sell copies of GPL'ed software and companies currently do that. Proprietary software and holding distribution rights to the software does not make it unsalable.
There's a gigantic warez community out there that operates relatively in the open and that hasn't stopped proprietary companies from cleaning house.
The "redistribution makes it impossible to sell" argument is a straw man argument.
"The purpose of the GPL is to advance the cause of socialism (sharing economy). The GPL has written by the free software foundation, not the open source community. The open source community is not a politial one but basically what you describe but they did not write the GPL. The free software foundation is a fully political movement that aims at removing ownership."
Actually, that's not entirely true.
The GNU GPL operates on the basis of ownership. Without ownership, the GNU GPL can't function.
Rather, it is proprietary companies that seek to remove ownership rights from the public, by licensing everything to them. In that system, there is no ownership. In the GNU GPL method - ownership rights are retained ultimately.
Don't turn this into something it's not. Comparing the GNU GPL to socialism (which is a system of government that seeks to provide base living capabilities to all people in the nation) is not an accurate comparison.
Also, while the Free Software and Open Source movement are as you represent them (Free Software political, Open Source apathetic) the communities often overlap and both communities accept each other's licenses more often than not.
Surely, there are open source licenses that are not Free Software licenses, but the Open Source community has openly accepted the GNU GPL. The very people who wrote the Open Source definition based most of that definition off of the values stated in the GNU GPL, and list it as a seminal document. To regard it as anything less is to give a revisionist version of history.
#