This is such an absurd fallacy that FSF nuts have been using since at least the early 90s.
The GPL does not ensure jack squat. It ensures source code availability as much as the BSDL does.
Consider the following function:
defmodule Jail do
def jls() do
System.cmd "ls", ["-la"], into: IO.stream(:stdio, :line)
end
end
Regardless! of which license that code is released under, that function is now open source, for the entire world to see and use. Period. It is never going away, it's never going to be unavailable. Or locked up. Or "closed". And "closed"? How stupid a statement is that about open source. Look, you cannot close open source! You can use it but the same open source code you are using is still out there and available! You can't make it disappear.
What you CAN do is ADD to that code. It's called adding value.
And that added value code is yours to do with as you wish. Release it open source or not. I don't give a crap, my function is still free, still open source, and still available for anyone to use no matter what you have done with your copy of it.
So don't give me this crap the GPL ensures code "remains free", it doesn't. That is a load of hogwash. And always has been.
The point of the GPL is to force others to release their value added code. To virally infect non free software to become GPL licensed open source code. And before you say "no one forces you to use GPL'ed code", you are right no one does, but then don't also claim your code is free. It's not.
The bottom line is the GPL accomplishes nothing the BSDL does not already accomplish. Except forcing anyone who uses it to license their value added code under the GPL and play by some socialist zealots rules.
The GPL is a one way technology blackhole. It sucks up other code licensed under more liberal/free terms but can't be used by them in reciprocation.
And your last statement is classic GPL thinking! "Play by MY rules or I am taking my ball and going home!" How freedom loving. We could all learn to embrace such a wonderful concept of freedom as that.
As if what-the-hell-is-an-externality free market "libertarian" zealots were any better.
> that function is now open source, for the entire world to see and use. Period. It is never going away, it's never going to be unavailable. Or locked up.
Sure. It's completely inconceivable that the moderation team might take down your comment, add "value" (read: adverts and malware) to your code, compile it into a binary and then charge $499.99 for a copy. Though even if something like that happened, you should be fine with it, right? If you don't like this outcome, you wouldn't publish it here in the first place. Everyone did exactly what they wanted and everyone should be happy. Total freedom!
Copyleft exists for some very good reasons. To not recognise them, and to spew slurs on it claiming it's not "Real Freedom" doesn't reflect very well on your viewpoint.
I think you have to understand this as a question of strategy. GNU and GPL does not exist only as a free alternative as a gift to the world. They are both strategic creations to further the aims of the free software movement.
Your argument is more or less correct, but it's a feature, even as seen by free software advocates. Not really a fallacy.
Compare it to the argument for gender quotas. A fair criticism, along similar lines, is that if you really do believe in equal rights and fair chances then you shouldn't argue for gender quotas, as they are, in fact directly opposed to equal rights.
In both cases the argument fails because it conflates interim strategies, designed as bootstraping mechanisms, as an application of the principles it's supposed to further.
I think the GPL can be seen as a clever law hack (in the sense of creatively using something in ways not originally intended). In this case not to enforce restrictions in usage but to actually enforce the opposite.
"Strategy" is not an significant concept for free software critics like the parent. They have seen this argument, but they are strictly first-order thinkers so it hasn't registered for them.
> Regardless! of which license that code is released under, that function is now open source, for the entire world to see and use.
Only if you disregard the law. Copyright law says that no, that is not freely available to the world. It's owned lock, stock, and barrel by the person who wrote it. If you choose not to attach a license to the code, nobody else may legally use it (barring fair use).
What license you attach to it defines how others may legally use it, and with what restrictions.
The law is why you can obtain the source code to Microsoft Windows from Microsoft themselves, but you can't re-release it in any form.
The GPL does not ensure jack squat. It ensures source code availability as much as the BSDL does.
Consider the following function:
defmodule Jail do def jls() do System.cmd "ls", ["-la"], into: IO.stream(:stdio, :line) end end
Regardless! of which license that code is released under, that function is now open source, for the entire world to see and use. Period. It is never going away, it's never going to be unavailable. Or locked up. Or "closed". And "closed"? How stupid a statement is that about open source. Look, you cannot close open source! You can use it but the same open source code you are using is still out there and available! You can't make it disappear.
What you CAN do is ADD to that code. It's called adding value. And that added value code is yours to do with as you wish. Release it open source or not. I don't give a crap, my function is still free, still open source, and still available for anyone to use no matter what you have done with your copy of it.
So don't give me this crap the GPL ensures code "remains free", it doesn't. That is a load of hogwash. And always has been.
The point of the GPL is to force others to release their value added code. To virally infect non free software to become GPL licensed open source code. And before you say "no one forces you to use GPL'ed code", you are right no one does, but then don't also claim your code is free. It's not.
The bottom line is the GPL accomplishes nothing the BSDL does not already accomplish. Except forcing anyone who uses it to license their value added code under the GPL and play by some socialist zealots rules.
The GPL is a one way technology blackhole. It sucks up other code licensed under more liberal/free terms but can't be used by them in reciprocation.
And your last statement is classic GPL thinking! "Play by MY rules or I am taking my ball and going home!" How freedom loving. We could all learn to embrace such a wonderful concept of freedom as that.