I can understand wanting to restrict use of something a person created using a restrictive licence. I can’t understand being sad about someone else not restricting what they created. To me it looks like someone being sad after seeing someone else giving out free ice cream, even though the person being sad didn’t contribute to making the ice cream.
My view on the GPL is that it's freedom-preserving, like how a law forbidding the enslavement of people is freedom-preserving, even though it technically restricts a freedom. That's why I look more favourably on GPL software than software with a so-called 'permissive' license.
This and similar arguments in this thread work on the same logic that frames software piracy as theft. It’s the fallacy of treating software as a tangible thing that, when copied, is taken away from someone and altered irreversibly.
That's ridiculous. The GPL explicitly allows people to make copies.
What many free software advocates actually want is a world without copyright on software. It's copyright that frames copying as stealing. In a world with copyright, the only way to counter that is copyleft. The fact GPL can also enforce inclusion of source code is a nice side effect of copyleft. But ultimately what we want is a world where software is shared, treated as knowledge and not as a product.
MIT style licences are just not good enough. That software could still end up in some copyright protected proprietary product one day and then, yes, someone could accuse me of "stealing" their property, which contains our software.
> What many free software advocates actually want is a world without copyright on software.
Some of them sure. The subset of them who are GPL advocates are simply confused though. GPL is not possible in a world without copyright. In a world without copyright I can release software, which can be written from the ground up or be based on something open source, doesn’t matter, and not share the code with anyone. Just the binary. I can also create AWS based on open source software and nothing like AGPL will stop me from providing proprietary services based on it.
And the reason I pointed to the fallacy is that multiple people in this thread suggest that making a proprietary product based on open source software constitutes taking something away from users of this software. This is illogical. They still have the original. The only person who loses in this situation is the original author, not the users.
You and the author appear to be the same guy. To be sure, the piece itself is an academic exercise hypothesizing a world in which the MIT license were law. And in such a world, the GPL gestapo would continue railing against opaque binaries even if those binaries were shameless but legal ripoffs of someone's hard work.
If I took emacs, modified it to be thread-safe, and distributed it as an opaque binary, John Q. Emacs User retains his thread-unsafe version but now knows there's something better out there which he can't iterate on. You can say this knowledge isn't a real "loss," but that would be dismissing the concept of opportunity cost.
So you’re fine with software provided as opaque binaries without source code or only as SaaS? Because without copyright you’re going to get more of that and no licence is going to stop that.
No, of course I'm not ok with that! But trying to get rid of copyright for software and make access to source code a right is a huge task. That's why the GPL is a pragmatic solution. The GPL is something we can use today to build a foundation of free software and make the idea of software freedom normal and expected. This smooths the way towards a future where we don't need the GPL, but we've got a long way to go yet.
Licences like MIT do absolutely nothing up further this goal. They don't even try to do it today even though we know it can be done. It seems convenient for software you might use now, but to contribute to it? It doesn't give developers any guarantee that their work will be received as free software by future users. You're essentially working for corporations for free. I want my work to be available for everyone.
And even the threat of that (and *GPL’s viral nature) makes it INCREDIBLY unlikely legal teams allow employees to even use binaries of the code on their workstations. Of course nothing is actually stopping them, and it would be hard to prove it if they did, but there is at least some semblance of a threat.
MIT and similar are simply roundabout ways to make it public domain.
I care a great deal for the GPL, but I'd be fine with copyright if it wasn't so stupidly long. The reason I care about the GPL is my belief in an informed public. As far as I'm concerned, withholding vital information (like a list of ingredients or source code) from the public should be a criminal offence.
Whilst yes, you could technically say 'well, if the user wants to know what this software is doing, they can just disassemble it', I'd consider that malicious compliance. It's like listing ingredients by their scientific names (like 'Arachis Hypogaea' instead of 'peanut').
For those confused by the dangling modifier, he means the combined act of cutting the trees and selling the wood is restrictive. Also, a terrible analogy since trees are an exhaustible resource within a meaningful time range.
> ...even though the person being sad didn’t contribute to making the ice cream.
But the issue of non-GPL software is the person on the receiving end might want to contribute, be technically able to contribute and indeed need to contribute to be able to keep using the software ... but then be blocked for legal reasons. The GPL doesn't care if you sell software or give it away or whatever, it is all about protecting freedom over time after the initial installation has happened.
The thing that makes the ice cream analogy ok is that the ice cream is literally synthesised into your body and comes under your complete control. If the ice-cream seller retained any sort of control over the ice cream after you'd ingested it that would be a serious problem! Both technically and morally. The GPL is aligning what happens in software to the analogy.
The poster I replied to complained about someone choosing MIT over GPL, not a proprietary licence over GPL. Noone is blocked from contributing for legal reasons. Quite the opposite.
The point of the MIT license is to make it easier to link it to proprietary software. It is setting up a situation where users will not be free. In and of itself it isn't a bad license; it just doesn't protect freedom and it can be used in ways that block people from contributing. By design.
If you expect people to treat MIT licensed software as GPL licensed software, then they should be licensing it under the GPL. That they aren't implies that the intent is different.
That they aren't implies that the intent is different.
News flash buddy. OSS devs, college and graduate students mostly, are clueless about the distinction and select whatever license tickles their fancy from GitHub's dropdown menu. They see a lot of MIT licenses floating around, recognize "MIT" as a good university, and figure they can't go wrong with it. They, like most normies, don't see how "freedom" figures into software at all. All they care about is getting a little shine before they join a FAANG after graduation.
As for why someone who does understand the distinction would choose MIT over GPL, ask Linus about why he'd "never want anything to do with the FSF" after being told to switch to GPLv3. Yes, MIT versus GPL is not the same as GPLv2 versus GPLv3 but the general concepts are the same.
If you want to argue that licenses are picked randomly then OK. But in that case, people should pick the GPL; it is a better license for preserving the freedom of software users than the MIT license.
> ... ask Linus about...
Linus uses GPLv2. I personally see merit in the argument that v2 is better than v3. Neither is MIT.
If you want to use the GPL license and not associate with the FSF then cool. If Linus wants to do that, also cool. The issue is the license, not if you want to work with the FSF. The GPL also grants users freedom from the FSF.
> It is setting up a situation where users will not be free.
No. It is setting up a situation where users can choose between a free option A and a proprietary option B based on A. Being sad about A being too liberal is suggesting it’s more important for you that B doesn’t exist than that A exists.
> If you expect people to treat MIT licensed software as GPL licensed software,
I don’t. Contrary to GNU and FSF websites, GPL is not a synonym for freedom. Most people, outside of GNU-centric places like this post about Emacs, prefer more liberal licences.
But it sounds like we have found agreement on the point that the MIT license is setting up an option B, where a person is blocked from contributing for legal reasons?
That is the big difference between MIT and GPL. With MIT licensed software, sometimes you have software that you can't legally adjust (or help others adjust). With GPL ... I mean it might be technically possible with some wildly creative approach but I haven't heard of such a thing.
> Most people, outside of GNU-centric places like this post about Emacs, prefer more liberal licences.
Controlling someone else's computer through legal means isn't liberal. I'm sure a liberal could call for that and accept a little ideological impurity.
If software is property, it has a new owner after it is sold and they can do what they like with it. That isn't what copyright does, it creates some sort of Frankenstein permanent-rent concept where the owner often doesn't maintain anything that is at odds with technical and market realities, relying heavily on the prosecution of victimless crimes. Which although arguably a desirable thing (I don't think so myself though) is illiberal.
The MIT license is explicitly designed to be compatible with building proprietary software. The key point of difference from the GPL is that you can use MIT code to create proprietary software.
I'm no lawyer, but it isn't even obvious to me that you have to MIT license a binary created directly from MIT licensed source code. "Software" seems to be the source code and therefore the binary probably isn't a copy or substantial portion of the MIT licensed program. Unless lawyers are redefining words on me it looks like I can compile MIT licensed source and distribute it under whatever alternate license I like.
But regardless, if the point of the license is to enable creating proprietary software, it is no stretch at all to speculate that it'll be used to create proprietary software.
I can't understand being sad about someone not restricting what they created
I can. The guy giving away the ice cream is destroying the market. You can't compete against free. If programmers would stop surrendering their labor, personal data resellers like Google and Facebook wouldn't be our primary means of making a comfortable living. Say what you will about Microsoft's monopoly in the 90s. At least they took your money with your eyes open.
The irony of course is free software zealots are pissed at the free ice cream guy for completely different, and I agree with you, utterly stupid reasons.
Yeah. I can get this angle. This is why we don’t have small independent companies making C and C++ compilers today. Only BigCorps which fund this development with money made from less honourable business.
I call these personality types free software socialists, and free software communists. The free software socialists are my friends. The free software communists are not.
