One of the goals of free software is to allow you to use it for any reason whatsoever, and I don't know if you realize what this actually means, or maybe you are to young, but once upon a time you couldn't use Visual Basic to create a Microsoft Office competitor.
If by usage you mean the copy-left behavior of GPL, I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whatever the fuck he wants from the software he wrote. And it's also in everybody's right to have his own opinion on how things should be done.
Linux people don't even get the freedom to name
their own operating system.
But in fact "Linux people" have always named their operating system however they pleased, which is really what upsets Stallman so greatly. But even so, he remained true to his original beliefs and never included such requirements in his own software or the GPL, he only bitched about it.
You really should look for the definition of "freedom" in a dictionary ;) Here, I'll do that for you ...
the state of being free or at liberty rather than
in confinement or under physical restraint
Are you in any kind of confinement or physical restraint regarding the naming of Linux-based operating systems?
I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whatever the fuck he wants from the software he wrote
Like, a fee of $50, for example? I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal. But it's not your fault, the GPL is also in opposition to Stallman's stated goals. He went from having the high ideal that software should always be open, to trying to force other people to think the same thing, thereby actually limiting how people use software.
We will forever wonder now whether we could have had all of the benefits of OSS without copyleft. But I for one would have much more respect for Stallman if he had instead supported BSD-style open licenses, and tried to convince others that open source was the way to go, rather than trying to control people's behaviour through the threat of legal actions.
Well yes, since you mentioned it, I think that's the author's right.
Having the opinion that all software should be free, that doesn't mean I want to force people into doing it, as that is indeed in opposition with the idea of freedom.
through the threat of legal actions
What threats? The only threats I'm seeing from FSF are in response to GPL-violations. If a software author chose GPL, that was his right and it doesn't mean you can relicense it as BSD.
Well yes, since you mentioned it, I think that's the author's right.
That's nice, but seeing as you seem to be defending the GPL, how I'm I supposed to collect my $50, if the next dev down the road packages up my code as an application, and makes it available free, with source code and what not. In the real world, I can no longer get paid for my software in such a circumstance. Or how about you produce a module, I see the module, recognise that I could make it substantially better, but with a non-legligeable investment of time. I would like to be compensated for making the software better, or I'm simply not going to bother. I, as a developer, do not have the right to develop a module of software that uses a GPLed module of software, and then sell it as closed source (to stop someone else from packaging up my work and distributing it for free).
The GPL is rather good at giving freedom to end users, provided that the end-user is a competent programmer. The GPL is lousy at giving freedom to programmers that want to add value to GPLed software, which in the long term ends up costing non-technical end-users access to better software.
What threats?
What do you think the GPL is? It's a threat to use legal remedies if you don't play by the rules of the GPL. Without that implicit threat, we could just ignore the GPL as a rather boring piece of irrelevant text.
seeing as you seem to be defending the GPL,
how I'm I supposed to collect my $50
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said authors should only license their work under GPL or compatible - my whole freaking point was that it is in their right to do whatever they want.
This opinion is not however opposed to my other opinion, that all software should be free. Because all software should be free by choice, not by law.
Also notice how I explicitly mark these as being opinions, that's because I leave room for considering errors in my judgment.
I am also not holly - I work on proprietary software all day long right now. I also think products in general ARE OK for now to be proprietary, but the platforms themselves ARE natural monopolies, going against what capitalism is about and are the scourge of this industry.
Of course this is not the opinion of Stallman which thinks absolutely all software should be free right now -- I can't blame the man since he's been warning us about all the dangers of closed software since the 70'ties and he must feel tired repeating the same thing over and over again, while being right and ridiculed at the same time.
Or how about you produce a module, I see the module, recognise that I could make it substantially better, but with a non-legligeable investment of time. I would like to be compensated for making the software better, or I'm simply not going to bother. I, as a developer, do not have the right to develop a module of software that uses a GPLed module of software, and then sell it as closed source (to stop someone else from packaging up my work and distributing it for free).
Yes, if you've released your software under the GPL, collecting money by granting access to it in exchange for money is not a feasible business model. There are other ways, though. Think along the lines of providing support. You could also sign a contract in advance, exchanging a GPL application for a mountain of cold hard cash.
What threats? What do you think the GPL is? It's a threat to use legal remedies if you don't play by the rules of the GPL. Without that implicit threat, we could just ignore the GPL as a rather boring piece of irrelevant text.
This is true of any contract or license. I've not heard the FSF or Stallman argue for the abolishment of contract law.
> granting access to it in exchange for money is not a feasible business model. There are other ways, though. Think along the lines of providing support. You could also sign a contract in advance, exchanging a GPL application for a mountain of cold hard cash.
That's great, now all you need to do is find programmers willing to accept n dollars instead of n×100 dollars.
Like, a fee of $50, for example? I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal.
This is incorrect. I quote:
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."[0]
If I am to judge by your other reply to me in this thread, you yourself know that it's quite deceitful to say that I can charge money for GPLed software. Yes I can charge money, but I'm obliged to supply the tools needed so that any half-competent programmer can undercut me by 100%, meaning that I can't actually receive money by selling my software, because you can always download the same software legally for free.
I wasn't being intentionally deceitful, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.
With regards to "charging money for GPLed software", I agree with you completely: if you write GPL software, it is almost impossible to make money by selling that software on the open market. The first customer you ensnare is given access to the source code, as well as the right to redistribute your work under the same conditions that you do, blowing up your entire business model.
I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but let me quote your original post and explain why I don't feel the above detracts from my point:
I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal.
The goals of the FSF (and thus Stallman, if only by his function as president) have nothing to do with money. The fact that there are ways of making money in the sofware world that are compatible with the GPL license is evidence of this. I mentioned some in my other post. This may not be as profitable as straight up selling (or renting out) the right to use your software, but that is merely a side-effect, not the ultimate goal.
> the GPL is also in opposition to Stallman's stated goals.
I suppose you say so because it doesn't give the user total freedom over his copy of the software? It's not that simple: if the user had total freedom, he would also have the freedom to actively restrict the freedom of users who get the software from him.
One's freedom is supposed to stop at other's, so this is not right. Therefore, you need to take away the freedom to restrict other's freedom. The GPL does just that, and no more.
The problem is that your reasoning only works for those capable of producing their own software. If I'm a normal user, my "freedom" is strongly limited by the fact that I will only ever have access to functionality provided by programmers - I can't produce it myself. And if you remove one of the big motivations for programmers to produce software, you have effectively reduced the freedom of end users - they will be able to do less with their devices, not more.
I have seen projects canned because we needed to use GPLed software to do an implementation in a reasonable timeframe, and management didn't want to give a leg up to our competitors by publishing the code. If the code in question had have been under a BSD license, the project would have gone ahead.
The problem is that your reasoning only works for those capable of producing their own software.
That is entirely the point. One of the stated aims of the GPL is to ensure that everyone is capable of producing software. The GPL attempts to ensure that your software won't ever be redistributed in a form that takes away the user's capability to build on your code.
You're entirely missing my point - for 99% of the population of this planet, producing software is going to forever remain beyond their reach. You can give them all the freedom to do so that you wish, they are still going to remain incapable of actually doing so. The GPL is not un unmitigated good for the vast majority of users.
You're entirely missing my point - for 99% of the population of this planet, producing software is going to forever remain beyond their reach. You can give them all the freedom to do so that you wish, they are still going to remain incapable of actually doing so.
Why? If you said that, for 99% of the population of this planet, literacy is forever out of reach, you'd be rightly laughed out of the room. The increasing importance and preeminence of software in every system we interact with means that programming is a new form of literacy and numeracy.
Not only can the 99% code, but, increasingly, they must. They must, in order to assert control over the software that increasingly controls them.
I must agree with your main point, which is that the typical user just won't have the expertise nor the energy to dive in and modify the code, making the GPL much less useful for them.
There are two obvious ways to solve the problem: find a way to make developers make more software that is useful to end-users (basically the Apple route).
Or, find a solution so that end users themselves can modify their systems. That second route is currently close because of the ridiculous size of current systems. (The volume of a typical GNU/Linux distro is the size of a whole library, and Windows and MacOS are fare marginally better.) The obvious solution there is to reduce the size of our software. http://vpri.org/ is currently attempting to do an OS in 20,000 lines of code (a middle-sized book), and they are doing quite well.
Note that doing the "Let's Remove the Fat" route, if successful, will massively reduce the amount of necessary programming work. Plus, more of that work will be done by the end users themselves. That could have dire consequences if we don't prepare for it. (A similar example would be automatic Google cars driving truckers out of business –no pun intended.)
"I don't know if you realize what this actually means, or maybe you are to young..."
You clearly don't understand what the GPL means. Nothing in the GPL lets you demand whatever the fuck you want. It is the complete opposite. The GPL only requires me to redistribute source code for any changes I make to your software.
Anyone who truly believes in the freedom of software would not try to bully the name of another project.
once upon a time you couldn't use Visual Basic to create a Microsoft Office competitor
I don't know if you know much about VB, but doing that would almost literally be a case of creating an app with a rich text control in the middle. It would be like changing a few keywords and calling Python your own language.
a case of creating an app with a rich text
control in the middle
The ActiveX / OLE controls available in Windows by default are nothing short of useless.
To have a Word-like processor in the middle of your window, you have to have Office installed ... I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that you can create a competitor that way, where a "competitor" would be a piece of software that actually replaces Office, not just augments it.
If by usage you mean the copy-left behavior of GPL, I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whatever the fuck he wants from the software he wrote. And it's also in everybody's right to have his own opinion on how things should be done.
But in fact "Linux people" have always named their operating system however they pleased, which is really what upsets Stallman so greatly. But even so, he remained true to his original beliefs and never included such requirements in his own software or the GPL, he only bitched about it.You really should look for the definition of "freedom" in a dictionary ;) Here, I'll do that for you ...
Are you in any kind of confinement or physical restraint regarding the naming of Linux-based operating systems?