On 02/27/2016 10:48 AM, Andrés Muñiz Piniella wrote: > El 27 de febrero de 2016 17:27:51 GMT+00:00, Aaron Wolf <wolft...@riseup.net> > escribió: >> On 02/27/2016 04:44 AM, Fabio Pesari wrote: >>> Many people (especially in the open source community) hate the GPL >> more >>> than they hate proprietary software, especially the GPLv3. I never >> found >>> an approach that works with those people. >>> >>> Mention "freedom" and they'll say the GPL is "restrictive" and >> "viral". >>> >>> Mention practical advantages and they'll say "corporations don't >> touch >>> anything GPL". >>> >>> Mention the dangers of proprietary software and they'll say it >> doesn't >>> matter if the program in question is practically better. >>> >>> Mention existing famous GPL projects and they'll argue that some of >> them >>> didn't switch to GPLv3 (like Linux and Blender). >>> >>> Actually, mentioning the GPL at all will get you covered with insults >>> and accusations of zealotry. >>> >>> Showing them articles from GNU.org doesn't work, and will only result >> in >>> ad hominem attacks against their author, Richard Stallman. >>> >>> This reminds me of Two Minutes Hate from 1984. >>> >>> How to reason with those people? They tend to gang up and it's very >> hard >>> to get your point across when everybody is agreeing with one another >> on >>> how stupid and brainwashed you are! >>> >> >> It's pretty simple: if they think proprietary licenses are okay, then >> it's hypocritical to say the GPL is bad. In no sense at all does GPL >> have more restrictions than proprietary. So, you can simply say "this >> GPL software, you would be okay with it just being proprietary, right? >> You don't think that's bad? Well, GPL is just the copyright holder >> choosing to give the General Public extra permissions. You could argue >> that you think they should go to a permissive license, but if you think >> proprietary is okay, you have to accept that GPL is okay too." >> >> I've never had a conversation with anyone in which they had any retort >> or reply to this at all. Either the conversation becomes productive >> because they accept this (maybe they start talking about how they do >> prefer permissive licenses, but they agree that people have full right >> to use GPL), or they just disappear. >> > > I don't understand this argument. > > Can't the same be said about 'push over licences'? (I am liking that term > better than 'permissive licence'). >
The argument is *not* a pro-GPL argument, it's a flat-out rejection of the "GPL is bad" argument when coming from those who make/use/approve-of proprietary stuff. This argument I presented is for the *specific* case of those anti-GPL people who complain about it blocking proprietary stuff. It's *not* an argument for GPL over BSD or an argument for those who reject both proprietary and copyleft licenses. > Also I think people use the revised or new bsd version thanks to fsf's input. > something about an advertising clause? > > CUPS seems to be another example of corporate suported gpl licence. > https://www.cups.org/documentation.php/doc-2.1/license.html > > I only heard one person saying push over licences was better and that was the > host of FLOSS weekly podcast. > > could work to talk about apache, at least it seems to protect users against > patents. > > **please cross check** > > I like the argument of cut your losses and just talk to other people. > > Definately politeness is best, and not go down the trolling route. > > > >