I tend to use GPL for fairly pragmatic reasons. If I've written some software - typically voluntarily and without payment - and put it out there for others to use then I would rather that the code remain in the public domain where improvements can be made which benefit everyone, including the original author.
Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
91–100 of 122 posts
Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
"On the other hand, MSDN is far more informative than source code comments, a half-hearted Wiki and a snide support forum for the non-professional programmer which populates your ideal world." This is directly at odds with my own experience. Whenever I've had to work on Microsoft platforms, I've been constantly bumping into walls where I simply couldn't get the information I needed to solve my problems. MSDN, or no,…
> "How about GCC or LLVM?" I assume that unlike the inhabitants of your ideal world and myself, you are a professional programmer. Why would I run LLVM or GCC instead of Visual Studio Express Edition or program in C rather than utilize a .NET language given that neither really supports Windows in the first place? For me, free OS's aren't an option. They don't offer the tools I use to practice my profession. To the de…
A part of programmers's job is to chose most appropriate tools to get the job done. It equally applies to hobbyists and professional programmers. However, licensing terms does not cause quality of tools and their documentation, it could only correlate to some extent.
The barrier you're talking about is research/learning cost. When you - for example - already have some knowledge of MS stack, unknown lands of GNU or Apple would even feel alien, so cost of using it would be higher. The opposite would be equally true. Just imagine an iPhone developer being offered to use MS stack, instead of Apple's one he's already used to.
Then, there're also personal tastes...
Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
#93I tend to use GPL for fairly pragmatic reasons. If I've written some software - typically voluntarily and without payment - and put it out there for others to use then I would rather that the code remain in the public domain where improvements can be made which benefit everyone, including the original author.
Just curious - how many actual improvements were made to your GPL'd software and how many of these in your opinion would have not been made public if the license was different (say, BSD)?
Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct: the original code (and ongoing work based on it) is still open, and Apple, et al, versions are not. This is fine. First and most importantly, because the desire to share code with BSD comes with no strings attached. It's just the desire to share. You don't have to have the same beliefs and priorities as I do in order to use my code. I believe in freedom enough to give you all the freedoms to do as yo…
> This is fine. But not for RMS since it doesn't address the founding concern of the FSF! You sort of glossed over that. If you write BSD code, and it gets put into OS X, your ability to tinker with your own code in that context is gone. I don't think you can clearly claim one license here is more free than the other -- they're both securing different kinds of freedom.
If I give away my code I do not demand that others let me poke at what they make with it, and I don't demand that they let their users poke at it. I still have my own code. This is fine with me. Nothing, absolutely nothing that Apple does with my code diminishes what I or anyone else can do with my code. When I share my code, I really share it for whatever purpose and to anyone. This is giving the fullest amount of freedom to any and every recipient of my code. Any possible restrictions I would place on them could only make it less free.
I understand that it's not fine with RMS and the FSF. And that's ok, because that's their point of view and plenty of other people feel the same way, and there should be a license for such people to use.
I understand that my views are not in line with the founding concerns of the FSF. But I never claimed they were. This is the very problem. The FSF has confused a generation of hackers into thinking that Freedom is the FSF and that the FSF is Freedom. They're not different kinds of freedom. The FSF promotes guaranteeing certain rights of anyone using software, where BSD is about freedom. You can believe in what the FSF is trying to do, and you can use the GPL to help get there! That's ok. It just bugs me about the "free" thing because it's not so true as the FSF would like you to think.
Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
#95I'm not a big fan on GPL anymore. When I create some software I prefer the user of my software to have all freedoms including the freedom to embed it in closed source software.
I never really got this line of thought. "I want my users to have all these freedoms, and then the freedom to deny all these freedoms to their users of this same base." It always sounded like "I want these people to have the power of voting, and then have the power to restrict others from voting."
Anyway, I went from GPL to BSD/MIT back to GPL (for "large" projects; small projects are public domain or MIT). I'd rather chain people with freedom while we have the copyright laws to do it than hope people will respect the freedoms I want others to have.
Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
"On the other hand, MSDN is far more informative than source code comments, a half-hearted Wiki and a snide support forum for the non-professional programmer which populates your ideal world." This is directly at odds with my own experience. Whenever I've had to work on Microsoft platforms, I've been constantly bumping into walls where I simply couldn't get the information I needed to solve my problems. MSDN, or no,…
> "How about GCC or LLVM?" I assume that unlike the inhabitants of your ideal world and myself, you are a professional programmer. Why would I run LLVM or GCC instead of Visual Studio Express Edition or program in C rather than utilize a .NET language given that neither really supports Windows in the first place? For me, free OS's aren't an option. They don't offer the tools I use to practice my profession. To the de…
If you simply enjoy having a large organization fix a lot of your design choices ahead of time, that's perfectly fine. You've got a lot of company. But don't pretend that everyone else lives in an ideal world because they are willing to take on more of the developer and design responsibilities than you are comfortable with.
Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is saying you must do anything. No one is demanding you to release your software under an open or free software license. I'm simply saying I would like for a culture of learning and sharing to remain strong and vibrant going forward. You're making this into an ideological flame war, without reason. I haven't demanded anything of you or the software you create. I have suggested that a vibrant and thriving open…
When someone calls rape immoral, does he want to say that rape is a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against rape, and every violation should be punished? When Stallman calls "non-free" software immoral, does he want to say that it's a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against publishing non-free software, and violations…
I consider killing pigs and cows for food, when there are good alternative sources of food available that require no cruelty, immoral. But, I do not seek to impose my morality on others by force of law.
He has, to my knowledge, never suggested there should be a law against producing non-free software. I have certainly never made such a suggestion in this thread.
Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone calls rape immoral, does he want to say that rape is a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against rape, and every violation should be punished? When Stallman calls "non-free" software immoral, does he want to say that it's a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against publishing non-free software, and violations…
I consider killing pigs and cows for food, when there are good alternative sources of food available that require no cruelty, immoral. But, I do not seek to impose my morality on others by force of law. He has, to my knowledge, never suggested there should be a law against producing non-free software. I have certainly never made such a suggestion in this thread.
Then, you're misunderstanding the word "immoral". To quote Steven Pinker from "The blank slate" (p.269):
"People feel that that moral rules are universal. Injunctions against murder and rape, for example, are not matters of taste or fashion but have a trancendent and universal warrent. People feel that other who commit immoral acts ought to be punished: not only is it right to inflict harm on people who have commmited a immoral infraction, it is wrong not to, that is, to "let them get away with it,"...
You have never suggested a law, but that's what the Free Software movement is about: In Stallman's mind -- and to those who understand him - , publishing non-free software is not just a matter of taste or fashion -- it's immoral and wrong; just like murder, rape, and stealing.
It must be punished.
Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider killing pigs and cows for food, when there are good alternative sources of food available that require no cruelty, immoral. But, I do not seek to impose my morality on others by force of law. He has, to my knowledge, never suggested there should be a law against producing non-free software. I have certainly never made such a suggestion in this thread.
Then, you're misunderstanding the word "immoral". To quote Steven Pinker from "The blank slate" (p.269): "People feel that that moral rules are universal. Injunctions against murder and rape, for example, are not matters of taste or fashion but have a trancendent and universal warrent. People feel that other who commit immoral acts ought to be punished: not only is it right to inflict harm on people who have commmite…
That's ridiculous. You can't just change the meaning of words to suit your opinion!
From the dictionary (I would specifically point you to #3, in case you're feeling too lazy to read all of them):
mor·al [mawr-uhl, mor-] –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. 2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel. 3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being. 5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man. 6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. 7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support. 8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty. –noun 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc. 10. the embodiment or type of something. 11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
You've clearly got an ax to grind here, but it's not with anything I've said in this conversation. You've thunk up some people out there trying to force you to work in software slave labor camps producing free software all the live long day. I have no idea where you got these ideas from, but it's not from anything I've said, and it's not from the FSF website or the GPL license and relevant documentation.
Re: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. Amazing how people can have different priorities and different beliefs. (And, amazing how one can abuse the word "free" or "open" in either case to mean two very different things.)
> And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open. I think that what you object to is that someone can take your code and make money using it in a closed source project, perhaps mod…
>> And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL.
> BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open.
But the modifications might not do, which is what GPL proponents care about. To me, the GPL is like saying "I'll share with you, if you share (your changes) with me".
This is not to say that GPL is better than BSD, or that either is better that a proprietory license; they're each designed to do different things. One might as well argue about whether a car a plane or a boat is the best form of transport.