"If you consider your argument to be correct, people in a completely proprietary world are free to not use proprietary software, too. You see, they are free."
This is the equivilent, in non-computer terms, of saying that people living in a dictatorship have the freedom not to live there... Huh? In a "completely proprietary world", they are free not to use "proprietary" software. How does that work? They just don't own a computer or any technology whatsoever? Does not sound like the kind of freedom I want to have.
The problem here is that you want to confuse one freedom as a grant of another. The freedom not to own proprietary software (especially in a "completely proprietary world") does not equate to having freedom to do what you wish with software.
The GPL gives you certain freedoms that you can excercise on software you obtain. However, it denies you a right to remove MY freedom as the author of that software.
For example: Greedy little thieves may not take my software, make changes to it, and release it under another license. I'm sorry, but as a developer, I see this as a good thing. If you don't like it, fine, release your code under something else. But don't bitch at ME because I don't want your thieving hands stealing my code and releasing it as your own.
"You're wrong -- unfortunately, I must say. It also restricts somebody else who likes to release his own work under a different license, if his software needs GPL'ed software to be installed -- a dependency is no derivation! Yes, there's also the LGPL but that's not what Richard Stallman wants; he just accepts the LGPL because competition drives him to accept it."
Uhh, the GPL does not state that a dependancy is a derivation.. Go read the license. It's only a derivation if your code links my code, which in programming terms, is no different than you making changes to one of my source files and recompiling. If your code has to link my code, and make direct function calls to my code, then your code is a derivation of my code. The GPL prevents you from now taking my code and linking it into propriatary code, making the overall result propriatary. This is a GOOD THING. And if you don't like it, don't release your code under the GPL.
"By spreading FUD, it makes people use the GPL although it's not absolutely clear whether software using regular library interfaces is legally a derived product."
There's a certain theme I want you to see here, and that is that this is all about the author of the code. If someone writes a peice of code, including a library, they have the right to choose a license that says that no-one can link to their code with non-GPL code. Don't like it? Don't use their code, write your own library. Why do you think you have the right to use someone else's work under a license of YOUR chooisng? It's NOT YOUR WORK.
"He claims the license creates freedom -- as just explained, it does not. It merely offers a different combination of rights, benefits, and costs."
This is like saying the constitution of a free nation does not create freedom because it restricts certain rights. Should you have the freedom to kill your neighbor? Should you have the freedom to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theatre? If we are to assume your arguments are true, no-one is truely free. But if we were 'truely free' under your definition, we would all have the freedom to restrict others freedom. In that case, are we any more free? No, we would be less free.
Bottom line here, is that as authors, we have the right to choose any license we want. We choose the GPL because it grants our users the freedom to use our software, to redistribute it, to modify it and to pass those modifications on.
We also choose the GPL because it does NOT allow that user to take our code, change it or link new code into it, and then redistribute it as a different license. Since it is MY code and MY choice, I like this feature. Since you are the one who wants to be able to take code and make derivitives without obeying the original license, I really don't care that you don't like it.
Coming to an open source site, and bitching about our choice of license because it does not suit YOU, is rather arrogant, and I don't think you're going to find alot of symphathetic ears.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Sorry, but that's not true.
Posted by: Jeremy Akers on July 16, 2006 10:00 PMThis is the equivilent, in non-computer terms, of saying that people living in a dictatorship have the freedom not to live there... Huh? In a "completely proprietary world", they are free not to use "proprietary" software. How does that work? They just don't own a computer or any technology whatsoever? Does not sound like the kind of freedom I want to have.
The problem here is that you want to confuse one freedom as a grant of another. The freedom not to own proprietary software (especially in a "completely proprietary world") does not equate to having freedom to do what you wish with software.
The GPL gives you certain freedoms that you can excercise on software you obtain. However, it denies you a right to remove MY freedom as the author of that software.
For example: Greedy little thieves may not take my software, make changes to it, and release it under another license. I'm sorry, but as a developer, I see this as a good thing. If you don't like it, fine, release your code under something else. But don't bitch at ME because I don't want your thieving hands stealing my code and releasing it as your own.
"You're wrong -- unfortunately, I must say. It also restricts somebody else who likes to release his own work under a different license, if his software needs GPL'ed software to be installed -- a dependency is no derivation! Yes, there's also the LGPL but that's not what Richard Stallman wants; he just accepts the LGPL because competition drives him to accept it."
Uhh, the GPL does not state that a dependancy is a derivation.. Go read the license. It's only a derivation if your code links my code, which in programming terms, is no different than you making changes to one of my source files and recompiling. If your code has to link my code, and make direct function calls to my code, then your code is a derivation of my code. The GPL prevents you from now taking my code and linking it into propriatary code, making the overall result propriatary. This is a GOOD THING. And if you don't like it, don't release your code under the GPL.
"By spreading FUD, it makes people use the GPL although it's not absolutely clear whether software using regular library interfaces is legally a derived product."
There's a certain theme I want you to see here, and that is that this is all about the author of the code. If someone writes a peice of code, including a library, they have the right to choose a license that says that no-one can link to their code with non-GPL code. Don't like it? Don't use their code, write your own library. Why do you think you have the right to use someone else's work under a license of YOUR chooisng? It's NOT YOUR WORK.
"He claims the license creates freedom -- as just explained, it does not. It merely offers a different combination of rights, benefits, and costs."
This is like saying the constitution of a free nation does not create freedom because it restricts certain rights. Should you have the freedom to kill your neighbor? Should you have the freedom to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theatre? If we are to assume your arguments are true, no-one is truely free. But if we were 'truely free' under your definition, we would all have the freedom to restrict others freedom. In that case, are we any more free? No, we would be less free.
Bottom line here, is that as authors, we have the right to choose any license we want. We choose the GPL because it grants our users the freedom to use our software, to redistribute it, to modify it and to pass those modifications on.
We also choose the GPL because it does NOT allow that user to take our code, change it or link new code into it, and then redistribute it as a different license. Since it is MY code and MY choice, I like this feature. Since you are the one who wants to be able to take code and make derivitives without obeying the original license, I really don't care that you don't like it.
Coming to an open source site, and bitching about our choice of license because it does not suit YOU, is rather arrogant, and I don't think you're going to find alot of symphathetic ears.
-Jeremy
#