You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL.
You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real commons have historically been managed with a variety of social and civic techniques.
However, precisely because of this widespread repeating of Hardin's use of the term "commons", I tend to doubt that random mentions on HN of "the commons" actually means "a carefully socially and civically managed resource available to all but notionally protected from abuse". Rather, it does indeed tend to be a synonym for "public domain".
BTW, I've been writing GPL'ed code for more than 35 years, and for the last 25+ years, it has been my full-time self-employed means of making a living.
> "a carefully socially and civically managed resource available to all but notionally protected from abuse".
no it seems that you've just been triggered - I did mean it in the above sense. that's why it's offensive when somebody takes gpl code and puts it in proprietary code that they distribute.
public domain means do as you want, even burn tyres in the park.
"BTW, I've been writing GPL'ed code for more than 35 years, and for the last 25+ years, it has been my full-time self-employed means of making a living."
That is embarassing for such a self professed domain expert to say something as ridiculous as:
"You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL."
I still don't hear an argument that actually shows how it's not a commons. If you're just arbitrarily declaring it actually means "public domain" I say you don't get to declare that and inventing your own definitions for terms is not a valid argument or even valid comminication, and there is no further point in attempting to communicate with anyone doing that.
I'm not making up my own definitions. I'm contrasting Garrett Hardin's use of the term in his famous book "Tragedy of the Commons", which is the way most people on HN use it with Elinor Ostrom's much more enlightened definition of it in her refutations of Hardin's claims (refutations that Hardin has accepted).
In Ostrom's sense, yes, GPL'ed code comprises a commons. In Hardin's sense, it does not (or at least, it has a bunch of features to it that render his entire thesis about commons inapplicable).
I think it does fit "a bunch of resources that people can just use". It's a shared pool where the only rule is to put derived code back, except the rule is even less because personal use is exempted.
You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL.
You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real commons have historically been managed with a variety of social and civic techniques.
However, precisely because of this widespread repeating of Hardin's use of the term "commons", I tend to doubt that random mentions on HN of "the commons" actually means "a carefully socially and civically managed resource available to all but notionally protected from abuse". Rather, it does indeed tend to be a synonym for "public domain".
BTW, I've been writing GPL'ed code for more than 35 years, and for the last 25+ years, it has been my full-time self-employed means of making a living.