> RMS does not want to allow his enemies to use the tools he
> creates.
Well, no; he wants them to use it as much as they like, as long as they
give back to the commons on which they built their foundations. There's
nothing at all wrong with asking that.
RMS would likely be insulted at the idea that he would forbid essential
freedoms to *anyone*, including the companies he hates.
There's an undercurrent in some patches of this discussion, if I may,
that suggests that openness is orthogonal to commercial success; the
idea being that GPL is "anti-business" and weaker licenses are
"pro-business". I'll just throw in "citation needed" with the reminder
that correlation does not imply causation.
Users (more like "Used") buy Windows all the time even though everyone
knows it can be had for free. Music lovers continue to pay for music
even though it's common knowledge that it can be had with less malware
on torrent sites, or simply cribbed from friends. Same for books, same
for everything.
Artificial scarcity creates artificial demand, but a natural abundance
does not diminish natural demand. And if you want to sell open code, it
had better be GPL, or your competitors will steal all your best ideas
and leave you with an inferior product. With GPL, you *invite* your
competitors to improve with you, while you both crib one another's work
and get better and more usefully distinct over time.
On 06/01/15 01:28, Jesse B. Crawford wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2015-01-05 12:29, odinn wrote:
This led me to ask if maybe there was just a way to release it
into domain (public domain) without the whole licensing system and
multitude of restrictions and competing licensing restrictions
(including Unlicense) coming into play, depending on the project /
projects being considered. (Again I think we are twirling in
circles here)
This isn't unheard of, the main example would be SQLite which is
completely public domain to great success. Although it depends on
jurisdiction, they explain this licensing arrangement as "Anyone is
free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the
original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means," which sounds about as free as it can get to me.
I had a discussion with RMS about this not that long ago. In fact, the
discussion began with the BSD project, which he seems to view
primarily as an attempt to undermine the work of the FSF (an opinion
that he expresses in some of his public talks as well). Anyway, I
think it is apparent from talking to RMS that he feels that it is a
goal of GPL to prevent "user-subjugating" software vendors ever
obtaining any commercial advantage from GPL-licensed code. The theory
of it is a bit like not selling ammunition to KKK members or
something, RMS does not want to allow his enemies to use the tools he
creates.
Of course I don't agree with him in this regard, but that's because I
don't feel that closed-source software is intrinsically evil. From
RMS's perspective, that closed-source software is fundamentally a
violation of the rights of the user, it makes a great deal of sense.
I think that even FSF advocates increasingly don't align fully with
RMS on this issue, but his ideas have certainly influenced the GPL.
jc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUqzotAAoJEBPrCUVAhb3Bn+kH+gLE/UOT4KPtf41ZKDr8L4UC
wl6F2GD6Pph7IFFzctpG4L5X84onFX45785Q3l56fmheIrt/FrBQJRmIkaLj3l0P
K7nRtHo0pAxrixTPc9CZ/6wnrVg0jHhayqnnXMKJjL6JqX/AUj9eE3qmG9X5EhmW
bHpmsl6tmqAMWGWUktEfRdjBpaAMnTCiOIzrSn3SXpILaPU1plK3XHP/pxlHdhnc
ULVZ2GbCNPwCU7LgZOHeCZyaC6yFez2VwsxtFO04vLPh9KCoe7cPO+6G/sO5dLrq
Mu06kiSUla08eLLTa6soR3meMGGfbQAQq/IkRCKdzLnWz4bH4n6r+t7AsX26ItQ=
=ytXp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
