You don't need the GPL for that; just provide the source code for your software. If users actually care about having the code, they can use your binary for which code exists.
If they don't care, they can use proprietary software, or proprietary extensions that make your software better.
Either way, the user has full control over their choice of software, and nobody's actions can make your original open source code disappear.
The GPL is really about enforcing your ideals onto other people's code if it happens to be reliant on yours. That's a legit quid pro quo for a license, but it has jackall to do with freedom or user rights.
>The GPL is really about enforcing your ideals onto other people's code if it happens to be reliant on yours.
Oh please, enough with the bs, your code won't just 'happen' to be relient on GPL licenced code. It's just as much of a choice as that of end users choosing not to use proprietary code which you keep repeating.
And of course it has to do with user rights, that is what GPL preserves.
The right to the source code of a binary containing GPL licenced code, the right to modify and build binaries from that said source code.
It legally binds anyone who uses GPL licenced code to grant those _rights_ to their end users.
Being able to examine the code for the ACTUAL binary you recieve, rather than some original source code which may very well have gone through numerous changes before being compiled into the ACTUAL binary you recieve are very different things.
And I've already described how from a developer standpoint this is of importance as they are likely interested in recieving enhancements to their code in 'source code form' if they choose to licence under GPL, but it's also of importance in other aspects aswell since you as an end user may want to examine the source code to make sure it doesn't do something you don't want, or change it's behaviour to do something _you_ do want.
Your entire argument depends on the fiction that users can't make their own choices, or that somehow your code can be made non-OSS once released.
Neither is true, and this hokey 'user rights' notion is just a thinly veiled justification for a paternalistic communist view of open source collaboration, in which you want to control not only your own code, but the code that other people write, too.
It wouldn't be so insidious if it was presented honestly, as a set of limitations on freedom for your own benefit as the author of the GPL software, rather than in terms of the moral high ground of granting freedoms.
No my entire argument depends on the FACT that GPL preserves end user rights which end users are not entitled to with permissive code and are not given with proprietary code. All your attempts to evade this point shows that you have no interest in any honest conversation.
This is not about end user choice, this is about end user rights. With GPL licenced code end users have the _right_ to the source code which created the _actual_ binary they recieve. They don't have to demand the source code, but it is their right, they don't have to examine, modify, run a resulting binary of their own, but it is their right.
These rights are NOT preserved with permissive licencing, and they are NOT granted by proprietary code.
You try to muddy the waters by saying that 'users' don't have to use proprietary code unless they want to, but again developers doesn't have to use GPL licenced code so that doesn't have anything to do with this at all.
Whenever you want to use someone else's code you are subject to their conditions, you sure see nothing wrong with setting conditions for using proprietary code (users can always say no), so by what logic do you think developers should not be allowed to set GPL conditions for their code?
Your communist rant makes you sound like some crazy right-wing extremist, you want to have the right to use other people's code in your proprietary projects, but the notion of other developers instead wanting access to code used in conjunction with theirs in return somehow strikes you as some oppressive communist scheme??? Seriously???
You seem to think open source developers somehow owe you code to use in a proprietary fashion, and if they don't provide it under such conditions they are 'communists who wants to control other people's code'. I can't quite understand people like you.
That's because you've pretty substantially misinterpreted what I said.
I don't think "developers somehow owe you code to use in a proprietary fashion" -- developers are free to place any licensing restrictions they want on their work.
What I do think is that the GPL is paternalistic, communistic, and intellectually dishonest.
Here's why:
- Once open sourced, your code stays open sourced forever. There's no way to "un-opensource" code, and users can make use of it, forever.
- If users want the source code to the tools they use, they are absolutely free to only use binaries from people that provide the source code. If they don't want the code, they don't have to.
Ergo, users already have the "rights" and/or "freedoms" you're pretending to gift to them. QED.
What the GPL actually does is create a quid-pro-quo communist common ownership of the means of production (code) between developers. This has nothing to do with "rights" of end-users, and everything to do with restricting the rights of developers should they choose to participate in the GPL ecosystem.
There's nothing wrong with that system (other than it being unworkable and viral and restrictive, but there's no law against being obtuse), but it is intellectually dishonest to claim some sort of moral or ethical high ground.
The GPL is a simple mechanism to restrict what other people do with the code they write in exchange for using your code, not about "four freedoms" or "user rights". The parallel's to Marxist Philosophy ought to be pretty obvious in the aptly titled "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" essay from RMS: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
>Neither is true, and this hokey 'user rights' notion is just a thinly veiled justification for a paternalistic communist view of open source collaboration, in which you want to control not only your own code, but the code that other people write, too.
No, this makes no sense. The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this, the main goal of it is to ensure that all users have equal control over the software. I don't know know how you draw the conclusion that the GPL only benefits the author, as the author loses most if not all of the (unjust) powers granted by copyright by publishing under the GPL.
> The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this ...
So copyleft/GPL licensing isn't an attempt to 'control' code? Despite the fact that this is exactly what they do?
> ... the main goal of it is to ensure that all users have equal control over the software.
The users already have the choice to use open-source software vs. proprietary software. If they want to have "equal control" over the software, all they have to do is make the choice to only use open-source software.
> I don't know know how you draw the conclusion that the GPL only benefits the author, as the author loses most if not all of the (unjust) powers granted by copyright by publishing under the GPL.
The author enters into a quid-pro-quo arrangement by which they get access to other people's code under terms equal to their own, and they're free to relicense their own code for whatever commercial use they want. It's an attempt to create a communistic shared ownership of code.
Copyright is what allows people to "control code." Copyleft is necessary to in essence "reverse the effects" of copyright. So yes it does technically leverage the control copyright provides, but this is necessary as everything is copyrighted by default. The author being able to re-license code he owns the copyrights to is an unfortunate side effect of copyright, but there is little that copyleft can do about that, it could happen regardless of the license chosen. A possible solution would be to transfer copyright to a group or person you know will never license anything under a proprietary license, such as the FSF.
Please refrain from using non-sequiturs like "communistic" to describe things. Copyleft does not deny anyone the ability to exercise any freedom including selling the software. The idea of copyright, and the idea that software should have "owners" are non-capitalistic ideas to begin with, so if anything the proprietary software companies are practicing authoritarianism.
It's hardly a non-sequitor; the parallels with Marxist thought on common ownership of the means of production are rather undeniable.
Like communism did to economies, the GPL has done our industry immeasurable harm by attempting to enforce sharing, creating closed ecosystems where the cost of market entry was so high that other's had no choice but to participate -- such as was the case with GCC, until the GPLv3 gave Apple sufficient cause to make a massive investment in breaking the GPL's shackles on the compiler/runtime tools software market.
>the GPL has done our industry immeasurable harm by attempting to enforce sharing, creating closed ecosystems
Your 'logic' is ridicoulus, GPL is no more 'enforcing' sharing than proprietary software is 'enforcing' non-sharing.
And proprietary code is the epitome of a 'closed ecosystem' as it by definition doesn't share it's source code. Meanwhile GPL code is freely shared amongst compatible licenced code.
Overall your entire line of thought is clearly that developers should not be allowed to share open source unless they allow it to be used in proprietary code, because if they don't they cause 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry.
If anything it's your kind of person who has done 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry, leeches looking for a quick buck, who thinks it's unfair if they have to compete against open source if they can't take that open source and modify and sell it. Which in the end is all that your arguments boils down to, you want the right to use someone else's code without having to return the favour, if you can't then you cry foul.
Whenever I come across someone like you I'm really glad the GPL exists as an alternative.
> Your 'logic' is ridicoulus, GPL is no more 'enforcing' sharing than proprietary software is 'enforcing' non-sharing.
You call my logic ridiculous, and then you reiterate my entire point. The GPL is enforcing sharing in the same way proprietary software is enforcing non-sharing.
Whereas the MIT and BSD licenses provide just as many freedoms as the GPL, without enforcing anything. They are, defacto, more free, both for end users and end developers. End users are free to only use open-source products, if they so desire, and developers are free to use liberally licensed open source however they wish to, too.
> Overall your entire line of thought is clearly that developers should not be allowed to share open source unless they allow it to be used in proprietary code, because if they don't they cause 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry.
This is a strawman argument that has no basis in what I actually said.
I think people should be allowed to use the GPL, just like I think people should be allowed to advocate communism. I also think that we should do our best to demonstrate the fallaciousness of their arguments, because they have the capacity to cause significant harm to our industry.
> Whenever I come across someone like you I'm really glad the GPL exists as an alternative.
And whenever I come across someone like you, it is made apparent that the GPL is more of a religion and an a political statement, rather than a reasoned decision made from an understanding of the economic and human realities of industry and our society.
>You call my logic ridiculous, and then you reiterate my entire point.
No, the 'point' you've been trying to push during this entire conversation is that proprietary software gives the end user the 'freedom' to choose not to use it, but somehow you claim that developers don't have that same 'freedom' when it comes to not using GPL licenced code, which of course is a big lie.
>Whereas the MIT and BSD licenses provide just as many freedoms as the GPL, without enforcing anything.
Stop trying to muddy the water with the meaning of the word 'freedom', we've already established that GPL is about rights, these rights are not provided by permissive licences at all. Again, GPL licenced code assures that the source code will be made available to end users, permissive licences assures nothing of the sort.
>because they have the capacity to cause significant harm to our industry.
How can they cause 'significant harm' to our industry? Furthermore how has GPL caused the 'industry immeasurable harm' which you claim it has?
>And whenever I come across someone like you, it is made apparent that the GPL is more of a religion and an a political statement
Yes the good old communist/religious/political card which always gets thrown by GPL haters when their arguments fall to pieces.
And you're not even close, I've spent my entire professional career writing software which know in the vast majority of cases has ended up being proprietary. I have no problem whatsoever with charging for software, and unlike Stallman I see nothing unethical about proprietary software.
My viewpoint is that of a developers right to set any conditions they want for THEIR code, which includes permissive, proprietary or copyleft. If I as a developer want to release my code under a licence which makes sure that any recipients of programs using MY code will also have the source code to those programs available, then that is my right (under the legal system we have now).
It doesn't matter if my motivation is that of wanting the source code of any enhancements made to my code (most likely motivation from a developer perspective), or if my motivation is political/philosophical (FSF), I still have just as much right as any other developer to set the conditions for using my code.
And neither of these motivations are in any way inferior to your motivation of wanting to make money.
> No, the 'point' you've been trying to push during this entire conversation is that proprietary software gives the end user the 'freedom' to choose not to use it, but somehow you claim that developers don't have that same 'freedom' when it comes to not using GPL licenced code, which of course is a big lie.
No, that's not what I've said at all.
> Stop trying to muddy the water with the meaning of the word 'freedom', we've already established that GPL is about rights, these rights are not provided by permissive licences at all. Again, GPL licenced code assures that the source code will be made available to end users, permissive licences assures nothing of the sort.
The permissive licenses DO provide those rights, if the users choose not to use proprietary software. If they want to use software for which the code isn't provided, they can do that too. Either way, you've given them nothing they didn't already have.
> How can they cause 'significant harm' to our industry? Furthermore how has GPL caused the 'industry immeasurable harm' which you claim it has?
The network effects of GCC/GDB being 1) very expensive to reproduce, and 2) easier to contribute to then replace, and 3) GPL'd, held back the advancement of everything from developer tools (IDEs, static analyzers, debuggers, disassemblers) to JIT implementations for 20+ years.
> Yes the good old communist/religious/political card which always gets thrown by GPL haters when their arguments fall to pieces.
If this essay was any more Marxist, it would be carrying a red flag and speaking Russian.
> And neither of these motivations are in any way inferior to your motivation of wanting to make money.
They're inferior because they're promoted based on intellectual dishonesty and false premises:
- Claiming that you're "granting freedoms", despite the fact that people already have them.
- Employing economic network effects by which the intention -- and end result, should the GPL succeed -- would make it not economically feasible for people to make a choice as to whether they wish to engage in your communal ownership of the means of production.
Fortunately, enough people have seen the logical holes in the GPL's premise that that the attempt to assume control over individuals' use of software, through economic clout of network effects, has not succeeded, despite setbacks such as GCC.
>Either way, you've given them nothing they didn't already have.
Of course you do, if you licence your code under GPL you ensure that all end users of programs using your code will be given the source code to those programs aswell.
>The network effects of GCC/GDB being 1) very expensive to reproduce, and 2) easier to contribute to then replace, and 3) GPL'd, held back the advancement...
More nonsense from you, nothing prevented anyone from forking GCC and 'advancing' it, in fact that's exactly what happened, and later that fork became the main project.
This is the exact opposite had GCC/GDB been proprietary, no one could fork it.
And GCC certainly hasn't prevented any proprietary competition either, instead it's existance has made sure that the proprietary competition have had to give better value to consumers as there has been a free alternative, which has certainly helped advance compiler development in general.
>If this essay was any more Marxist, it would be carrying a red flag and speaking Russian.
GPL is a software licence, not a political manifesto. Are you saying GPL became the most widely used licence in the world because all developers who chose to licence their original code as GPL did so because they were politically motivated? Hardly, I'd say the vast majority chose GPL because of it's tit for tat mechanism which ensured them access to modifications of their code.
The largest and most successful cooperatively developed software project in the world: Linux, had GPL chosen as it's licence by it's creator for exactly this purpose, not for political reasons.
And as it's a licence GPL has no impact at all unless a developer _chooses_ to licence their code as such and another developer _chooses_ to use it.
>Claiming that you're "granting freedoms", despite the fact that people already have them.
I've already said that I don't agree with the word 'freedoms', again it is 'rights' which is what they should have been called as it is rights which is passed along to the end user. And no, these rights are not something end users are entitled to with permissive licences, they don't have the right to get the source code with binaries which uses permissively licenced code. You can stop this bs now.
>Employing economic network effects by which the intention -- and end result, should the GPL succeed...
GPL is already a success, it's a viable licence choice, used in a ton of software.
Permissive licences are also successes, it doesn't matter if GPL is used more, permissive licences fill a need and are therefore widely used aswell.
Also these licence types (copyleft, permissive) are typically used for different type of software, copyleft is usually the choice for full solutions/applications, while permissive licences are typically used for component/framework code. As such reflecting how they satisfy different needs amongst developers.
And there will always be a place for proprietary software aswell as long as they produce value for users which makes it worth the 'cost' (typically monetary). And if you can't compete with something someone gives away for free, then you really should be doing something else.
The 'industry' doesn't owe your proprietary projects open source code or protection from competition of free alternatives.
If they don't care, they can use proprietary software, or proprietary extensions that make your software better.
Either way, the user has full control over their choice of software, and nobody's actions can make your original open source code disappear.
The GPL is really about enforcing your ideals onto other people's code if it happens to be reliant on yours. That's a legit quid pro quo for a license, but it has jackall to do with freedom or user rights.