GPL has little to do with communism, for 2 reasons. One is not very important. The other is crucial.

The lesser reason is the development model of free software: Open Source. To have the power over an open source project, you have to contribute. The money is good contributions, and the rewards are reputation and control over the project. Add in the inevitable political discussions about the direction the project, and you will see a rather capitalistic micro-society.

The greater reason is that sharing software is not the same thing as sharing food or shelter. Food and shelter are scarce. Sharing them mean having less of them. Software is abundant. Sharing it will not mean having less of it. Communism forces you to share scarce resources. The GPL forces you to share abundant resources. This is completely different.

Even then, the only circumstances in which GPL forces you to share is when you distribute "derived work". Meaning, if you have GPL software, you have the right to use it and modify it any way you like. Without sharing anything. If you distribute this software (modified or not), then, you have to release all of it. Mods included.

This is worth repeating: when you use GPL software, you don't have to share any of it. Even when you modify it. Remember the 4 freedoms: when you have a copy of some GPL software, you have: (0) the right to use it any way you like, (1) the right to study it and modify it any way you like (privately if you want to), (2) the right to share it, and (3) the right to share your mods. You can share, but you don't have too. If your company uses GPL software, and modify it for it's purposes, it doesn't have do release anything. This is very important. If you had to release your mod no matter what, this would be an attack to the freedom of thought.

You say the GPL is incompatible with our less than ideal world. Fair enough. Now, can you name one ideal which is compatible with our world? Even slavery isn't completely abolished. I mean, any political idea will have its opponents. The GPL embodies a political idea (not being a slave of your computer). Therefore, it has opponents. If your conclusion is that a software licence shouldn't embody political ideas, take a look at proprietary software licences. Restrictions like "thou shalt not study this software" are indeed quite political. Especially when this kind of restrictions is widespread —and it is. The only way to effectively oppose such a political idea is to go political yourself, and use GPL (or other free) software. If you don't care about either political ideas, you can wait and see. Which is fine. I do that for countless political ideas. You can't, however, oppose the GPL without being in the camp of proprietary software, at least to some extent.

You say the GPL is an "all or nothing" approach. It is not. It was specifically designed with our current world in mind, to make it go from proprietary software to free software, progressively. When the GPL wasn't up to this task, it was not used. The GNU C library, for instance, uses the LGPL. Meaning you can use the Glibc in proprietary software. This strategy better served the free software ideals than plain GPL. Of course, for any individual software, being GPL looks like "all or nothing". In general, however, the adoption of GPL software can't be but progressive.

I also suspect that you think the GPL is idealistic. Not pragmatic. You may think the BSD licence is pragmatic. This is a common view. Some people would like to distribute proprietary software with GPL code in it, only to find that they can't. They are pissed off by the idealism of GPL. Then they find they can do that with BSD software. They are pleased by the pragmatism of BSD, which let them do what they want. Hem. That was the point of view of a proprietary software vendor.

Actually GPL is way more pragmatic than BSD. Look at what the BSD licence says: "do whatever you want with my code, I won't ever oppose you or your political ideas". As neutral as it gets, and a bit weak. Many people who work on BSD licensed projects don't like proprietary software, but let their code be used in proprietary software anyway. The GPL, on the other hand says: "If you want to distribute this code, you will do it on my terms.". The GPL pragmatically serves an idealistic political agenda (most are, anyway).

Remember: the political agenda behind the GPL is freedom. Communism as it was implemented heavily restricted your freedoms. Remember Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!". When Richard Stallman asks us, repeatedly, to give up the convenience of proprietary software to have the freedom of, well, GPL software, he is closer to the ideals of the founders of America than communism.

I think you took my comparison too concretely.

Communism is about as similar to the GPL as it is to pro-lifers. Nothing more, and I did not mean to imply any more similarity than that.

To help you grab on to my extended metaphor:

Communism: a communist controlled authoritarian country => GPL: the subset of _released_ software licensed under the GPL

Communism: your natural free will and ability to make a choice => GPL: Your guaranteed rights (in free world) to intellectual property

Communism: everyone's forced to be selfless (fair redistribution of wealth)... under penalty of death? => GPL: everyone's forced to license under GPL under penalty of being sued

Communism: if not forced, one person could shift the economy because communism != economic equilibrium => GPL: If GPL does not force GPL on derivatives, then one proprietary software could shift the balance of power so that it's more advantageous not to open source. This is because if on guy doesn't share, he expends less resources on helping others, while taking in fruits of others' labors.

Public domain is like a family, or really small communal group, whereas GPL is like some authoritarian communist state. You've got the family which works well on the ideal of dedication to the whole. It's small, but it's all by free choice. You've got communist China supposedly trying to force this ideal of a harmonious multi-billion member family on its people, while probably never going to achieve it. Sure they're converting more people to communism, but at what cost?

There is no absolute force. There is always at least 2 distinct choices, and any "forcing" as we know it is a result of external pressure. The GPL exerts an external pressure on decisions, so for all intents and purposes, it forces, thus limiting true freedom. True freedom is when there are no external pressures on a decision.

Communism (in practice): In order to propagate and preserve itself it needs to be forced upon people because the slightest selfish act topples the whole system. This is opposed to letting everyone choose to be selfless (not bloody likely, which is why force is necessary). GPL: In order to propagate and preserve itself it needs to enforce its doctrine by law whether or not it makes practical sense in individual cases. This is opposed to letting everyone choose when it's appropriate and practical to open source, and when to proprieties (like in Communism, it can be disadvantageous for all if only a few keep their software proprietary). However I do concede that since the GPL does not force you to release the changes it is one good thing about it. Pro-lifers (in practice): In order to propagate life and preserve the sanctity of it, it is necessary to force people to do the morally right thing, whether or not it's practical in each individual case.

Common themes: absolute black and white world view; end justifying means; restricting free choice It's particularly hypocritical of the GPL, which espouses freedom, to achieve it's goal through restriction of freedom. Hey sure if we are all nice selfless people we could live in a global commune. If we are all righteous, we wouldn't need to be forced not to kill (or make) babies we don't want. And if we all understood the benefits of free software, we wouldn't need to be forced. But we aren't Jesus, aren't righteous, and aren't smart enough to appreciate free software. Therefore it's unfair to encourage anything that forces people to pretend the world is ideal.

------------------------

>Now, can you name one ideal which is compatible with our world? Even slavery isn't completely abolished. I mean, any political idea will have its opponents.

Your question is an oxymoron. By definition anything ideal is unattainable, and as for the purposes of our discussion, it means it's also not compatible with our world. But I don't know why you are treating me like I'm Microsoft, I love free software. I've learned all I know from free software and it's let me build some wonderful things. But I love free software for freedom. And the GPL is not free. It's trying to make the world free, but by utilizing the very restriction on software freedoms it's trying to abolish. Hey if free software is really good for everyone, why not let it propagate by its own merits, rather than artificial restrictions/terms? I for one have faith in the practical benefits of free software, and don't believe it's necessary to force (if you want to benefit from GPL) people to adopt it.

> If your conclusion is that a software licence shouldn't embody political ideas, take a look at proprietary software licences. Not my conclusion at all, I think free-er licenses are just as political.

> Restrictions like "thou shalt not study this software" are indeed quite political. And what's the difference between "thou shalt not study this software" and "thou must make any changes public upon distribution"? They both restrict your rights. And the only time the GPL's restriction wouldn't matter is if the whole world's softwares were under GPL. But that ain't happening any time soon, and sure as hell ain't going to happen if I'm forced to do it.

> It was specifically designed with our current world in mind, to make it go from proprietary software to free software, progressively. Yes progressively by force... by constantly limiting our choices until one day we've got none but GPL (or do everything yourself).

>Remember: the political agenda behind the GPL is freedom. The whole idea of freedom is to have freedom in means, not just the ends. Plus, being an ideal, that end will never be achieved, which means all we've got are the means. So if the means aren't free, we'll never be free. So given that the GPL restricts our rights to try to achieve a probably unattainable ideal, we'll probably be stuck having our rights restricted until the end of world.

> You can't, however, oppose the GPL without being in the camp of proprietary software, at least to some extent. That's like saying you can't be pro-choice without being at least a little pro-death (which is not true btw). Like I said before, I want all software to be free, but I'm not going to waste my time restricting rights while trying to achieve that goal.

It looks like it boils down to the restrictive clauses of the GPL. The reasoning is easy: BSD gives you total freedom. GPL gives you the 4 freedoms and some restrictions. Logical conclusion: the GPL is less free than the BSD.

This forgets a basic freedom principle however: ones's freedom must stop at other's. The GPL guarantees that you can't further restrict the freedoms it gave you. The BSD does not. Effectively, the BSD gives you the freedom to restrict other's freedoms. We have some examples of liberally licensed software which were more often distributed as proprietary software rather than as free software (IIRC, X was such an example). Therefore, when you look at the society as a whole, you could see that GPL software is more free than BSD software. (Now that companies see the practical advantages of Open Source, this effect is arguably weakened.)

My conclusion is that the GPL does a better job at promoting freedom than the BSD licence. To me that's what's matters. You may still disagree, but I'm out of arguments.

PS: Sorry for treating you like Microsoft, I got carried away.

Just to be clear that all this only makes sense if we assume that intellectual property is a sham.

> This forgets a basic freedom principle however: ones's freedom must stop at other's.

Ahh, but there is no action which is self-contained. Everything we do will affect others and somehow restrict someone's freedom in some way. For example if I take an apple, you can no longer take that same apple. It only becomes fair when everyone mutually agrees on the terms. Murder is an obvious one we can all agree on, intellectual property is hazier.

So with the BSD you are guaranteed your software stays free, but other's can stay within practical limits while still benefitting from free software. And if enough of this natural, unforced benefitting happens, more people will learn and move to free by choice, not by force.

In case you compare it to slavery: These are two different things, because for unfree software, we all have the right to make our own software. It simply restricts our right to utilize others' creations. But since this is a uniform restriction, it's not unfair. Slavery is not a uniform restriction. It only applies to the group being enslaved and affects the same fundamental thing we're talking about with software: people, but in a different way.

> Just to be clear that all this only makes sense if we assume that intellectual property is a sham.

I do. It's a useful sham, however, so I'd think twice before abolishing it.

> So with the BSD […]

I don't think the GPL forces you to choose free software. GPL software just can't be used to make proprietary software. Right now, you still have plenty of proprietary alternatives. People still buy them. You still have the choice. In the end, if the GPL takes over, that will be because everybody who didn't chose it will be out of business. I'm not sure this is bad in any way.

I think what you actually don't like about the GPL is its give and take nature: if you don't give, you can't take. So, being forced to give imply being forced to take. If nobody is forced to take, nobody is forced to give.

Do you think anyone is somehow forced to take? Meaning, does anyone is forced to distribute GPL derived work? Do you have any example (actual or hypothetical)?