"Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?"
I find it ironic that people would associate the GNU with freedom, when it's anything but. The AGPL and GPL is about giving out your source code and telling people exactly how you can (and most importantly cannot) use it.
How is this any different than a proprietary license?
I'm fine with people being against commercialization of their work, but I just wish they would stop trying to pass it off as freedom.
This is why I only support the BSD license. Yes, people may make "more money than me" on my own work, but if that's the case, they obviously have better ideas than I do..and deserve the success.
It seems like the FSF and Stallman want companies to get confused and use GNU software in their proprietary application. By calling it "free", some people do get confused and use it..and it usually ends up on lawsuits that require the company to open up the source of their app and/or the hiring of a "GNU compliance officer".
You're implying "commercialization" means "closed source". GPL'd as well as AGPL'd software can be sold. Others can download it, modify it, sell it as well, and make a lot of money off it. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you make the source available under the same license it was made available for you.
"You're implying "commercialization" means "closed source". GPL'd as well as AGPL'd software can be sold. Others can download it, modify it, sell it as well, and make a lot of money off it. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you make the source available under the same license it was made available for you."
Right. So legally, the person you sold it to can
1) re-package it and re-sell it
2) copy it and send it off to all of their friends (and you can't do anything to stop them)
3) Most people in the community detest commercialism.
I would never want to base a business off of a license like this. It's just asking for trouble.
"With GPL software, you get the right to modify and distribute under certain conditions. With proprietary software you do not have those rights at all."
With proprietary license, you are given a strict set of restrictions. The same goes for GPL/AGPL licensed software. There really is no difference. They are both licenses used to restrict usage not to give you freedom.
True freedom means tolerating things you don't agree with..such as commercialism.
It's not true that you don't get those rights with proprietary software. It depends on the license, as always.
The disconnect the GP has is that the GNU GPL is based on freedom, yet it places significant restrictions on what you do with the software under the GPL. It's a fine license, but calling it "more free" is nonsense.
Define "significant". Because in a sense I agree: these restriction have profound implications. In the other sense, however, I disagree: the restrictions you speak of don't unreasonably limit your freedom.
Remember the four freedom free software gives you: (0) running it for any purpose, (1) modifying it, (2) re-distributing it as is, and (3) re-distributing it modified.
With GPL, freedoms (2) and (3) can only be enjoyed at one condition: giving to those who receive the software the exact same freedoms you enjoyed. In other words, you shall not make your users less free than you are already. This is a long standing principle: one's freedom shall stop at others'.
I argue that the GPL merely forces you to respect that principle (it will be very hard to convince me otherwise). If you don't like that, I will be forced to question your morality.
Compared to the BSD-family of licences, the GNU GPL is less free, as it restricts what one entity can do with code granted by another. I'm not saying this is a bad thing; this is exactly what the GNU GPL is written to do: enforcing a share-and-share-alike ethos for a given set of code.
I do think that the rhetoric (including the "four freedoms") is nonsense that could be left by the wayside with no harm, and possibly even improve it. That's the part about the GNU GPL and the FSF that I can't stand: don't try to tell me that this is about freedom. Tell me that this is about building a base of code that requires share-and-share-alike behaviour and that you're doing it because you think it will produce a richer environment. I may not agree with you, but at least I'll respect your stance.
If I want to restrict others use of my software in a way that they have to grant others the exact same rights that I granted them in the first place, then I will happily pick the GNU GPL or some other license that achieves the same thing, because that's what I want in that case. If I don't want to restrict others use of my software in any way, I will pick something much less restrictive (such as the MIT or BSD licences). If I want something in-between, I will choose an in-between license like the MPL or the LGPL. But in no way will I pretend that my application of restrictions is increasing freedom. It's the restrictions I'm choosing for the software I'm writing. No more, no less.
The GPL is tactically less free, but strategically more free.
It restricts you from using software to build non-GPL software (including BSD-licensed free software), but it prevents software from being "taken private" by commercial developers.
I (again) don't so much care about the ethics (BSD's just fine) as I do about the commercial impact. The GPL is far, far more author-friendly than the BSD license is.
With the exception of your first sentence, I completely agree with what you've said. (I disagree with the first sentence on philosophical/semantic grounds that aren't really relevant to your point.)
When I want to force others to share code that I have written, I will choose the GNU GPL or something very like it. If I don't care what others do with code, I will release it under a much less restrictive license.
Conditionally forced sharing is still forced sharing. NeXT was forced to share the Objective C compiler code with its customers because the GCC was under the GNU GPL. If NeXT had not distributed the GCC compiler and simply used it internally, the conditional sharing clause would not have kicked in.
The GNU AGPL has even a lesser conditional trigger, access over a network.
What neither the GNU GPL nor the GNU AGPL require under any circumstances is contribution of modifications upstream or global sharing. You are only required (when the conditions kick in) to share your source with those who use your GNU {,A}GPLed software and not restrict them from modifying and sharing the source.
My shorthand statement to which you objected was incomplete, but definitely not incorrect. All forms of the GNU {,A,L}GPL have certain conditions in which you are required to make available the source and any modifications you have made to those who have obtained your software under such a license. (Of course, this also only applies to downstream authors and users; the original authors are under no such obligation.)
"I feel that many people take it at face value and actually think that "the GPL forces to share modification", unconditionally."
If you use GNU licensed software, you are required to give out all of your changes to anyone that asks. In addition to this, anyone that requests the source can just as easily start sharing it and all of your modifications for free.
It sounds like you are getting annoyed because people aren't stating the obvious.
I'm not a fan of the GNU GPL for most cases, but your statement isn't quite correct. You are required to give out all of your changes to anyone to whom you distribute asks.
If I am a downstream ISV that has code under the GNU GPL because of upstream incorporation and sell my software to users, only those users I sell my software to may legitimately ask for a copy of the source. I cannot restrict them from giving it away or sharing it, but I don't have to honour all requests for the source and my modifications—just the ones from people I've distributed the software to.
Most businesses that use GNU GPLed software choose to either link to the upstream and host local patches, or host their custom distribution entirely, effectively giving the software away to everyone. They aren't required to do so by the terms of the license.
You just said that if you download a copy of Emacs, then make some modifications to it, then I can force you to surrender those modifications to me. That is wrong.
So, I am getting annoyed because you (and many others) don't understand the GPL. Go read it.
The GPL has absolutely no restrictions on how you can use the code. You can take the code and write any application you want. You insert or delete any combination of characters anywhere in any of the files and share these changes with anyone in the world. No restrictions.
What the GPL "restricts" is your ability to restrict others' use of the code. The only thing it stops you from doing is changing the code and distributing that changed code with license that restricts others' use of that code. That's it - this is a restriction on a person or corporation's legal ability to create a license. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability change the code.
This is pretty much paraphrasing the GPL itself, I know, but still..
It's better overall if you and all your users have this limited form of freedom zero, when the alternative is that only you have it and your users have nothing.
Is "Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?"
a response to "..and here I thought the GNU was about freedom and helping your fellow man. Instead, it's about preventing someone from "making a lot more money off of it than you do"."?
I ask because most folks measure commercial success by how much money they make. Very few measure it by how much (or little) other people make.
