I agree with Karl Fogel here:
'I've never understood the "GPL is not free" argument. The only restriction the GPL imposes is that it prevents people from imposing further restrictions. To say that this results in less freedom has always seemed perverse to me. If the retention of monopoly is somehow a freedom to be protected, then the word "freedom" is no longer
I think Stallman also said basically the same thing.
Its a different freedom from say, the BSD license. The GPL protects user freedoms, the BSD license protects developer freedoms.
@meka @UberGeek @alcinnz And the majority of those 0.7% have not recognized their influence and have been terrible stewards of it, selling it to corporations and whatnot at the expense of all computer users. I find copyleft a fair tradeoff while those 0.7% sort themselves out and become more responsible.
The BSD explicitly allows developers the freedom to not share with users the code, if they desire.
Neither choice is "wrong" per se. They are just different ways of applying a different set of freedoms.
@UberGeek And that has been the most I actively try to convince people of.
Because it's true, the argument comes down to different definitions of "freedom".
@alcinnz The reasoning is simple. It is viral. Free projects under any permissive license (effectively less restrictions) can not use or interact with software under it.
@alcinnz gotta say: personally, i prefer having smaller projects and libraries under smth like mit and larger projects under gpl.
having said that, i agree.
it's like the tolerance paradox. if you tolerate ideas that reject tolerance (like fascism), then at the end it's (1) useless, (2) intolerance wins.
same goes for free software. if you wrote an important piece of software only for it to be proprietized by someone else, that's not really a good thing for either free or open-source software. ->
@alcinnz <- this is also why i was _extremely_ mad when oracle sent openoffice.org to the apache foundation.
like, doing _nothing_ would be a better option than that.
a more conspiratorial part of me thinks that it might have even been a deliberate move on oracle's part, something of a "if we can't have you, then no-one will" kind of thing.
@devurandom I don't follow this last toot. Can you explain?
@alcinnz afaik openoffice.org used to be a sun microsystems project that had a proprietary version and a gpl-licensed open source version.
when sun was bought by oracle (which didn't have a lot of interest in openoffice), it decided to gift the project to the apache foundation under the terms of the permissive apache license.
as a result, the source code, which previously only sun/oracle could use for a proprietary product, became available for everybody to do so. ->
@alcinnz <- (luckily, it seems that we've avoided the fate i was dreading, though, in that most people still use either oo.o or libreoffice and not a proprietary fork.)
@alcinnz You're not wrong, but to many "Freedom" does mean free to exploit those less fortunate, less intelligent, or certain shades of flesh tones, or whatever ever differences they dream up in their now fragmented and certifiably insane societies to separate themselves from some group of people who are now safe to murder rape and pillage to their hearts content.
In other words, #humans
@alcinnz Strongly resembles paradox of intolerance.
GPL is intolerant of intolerance.
@alcinnz Ancaps and other hyperindividualists tend to be congenitally incapable of learning the difference between positive freedom and negative freedom. ("freedom to" and "freedom from"), and they're not very big on social freedom, they only understand economic freedom which leads them to horrible things like supporting corporations against the public interest.