(Sorry for the duplicate message Fabio, re-posting to the list.) I've experienced similar frustration talking with people about the GPL.
The most frustrating responses are when I talk with GPL-haters who I know and respect as developers, who are otherwise nice and care for others, and whose other political positions agree with mine. That situation forbids me the luxury of exclaiming "what an idiot!" and abandoning the discussion. They've somehow reasoned themselves into a position opposing GPL, genuinely thinking theirs is the best way to do things, and I can't conclude "they're a sociopath who only cares about themself." I have found it productive to try to explore their rationale until we discover a point at which our opinions diverge. Some of what I've encountered: Misinformation. A depressingly large number of people who I've disagreed with eventually reveal that they've never read the licenses they criticize. They're just parroting what influential leaders in their community have told them, that made sense at the time. There have been supporters of copyright abolition, who believe that all use of copyright is unethical. We've discussed that recently. :) I suspect it's a reaction to the copyright abuses of the RIAA and MPAA and ridiculous death+70 year copyright terms, when a better solution would be short copyright terms. (I believe copyright is good at protecting the interests of creative individuals against the rich and powerful who would exploit them... if it only had sane limits.) "It's complicated and developers regret the choice later on." Example: Someone creates a GPL website maintenance system, but is unaware of the need for a permissive license exception for the JavaScript in its output templates. ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS ) GPL-haters claim that the GPL then "infects" the pages output by the system and swear off its use (or convince them to re-license the whole thing with a pushover license.) This is happening with Pelican, and I don't see a license exception for Wordpress or Drupal so I'm not sure if the same argument could be wielded against them too, or not. ( https://github.com/getpelican/pelican/issues/1397 ) One person I frequently argue with seems to be fine with "weak copyleft," but rejects the mechanism by which a whole work is covered by GPL when combined with GPL code. "If I obey the license for the code you wrote (as if it were LGPL'd), what gives you any moral rights over the code I wrote?" > Mention "freedom" and they'll say the GPL is "restrictive" and "viral". I like to focus on the four freedoms offered by all free software licenses (including pushover licenses), and then describe how the (A)GPL is the best *protector* of those freedoms. > Mention practical advantages and they'll say "corporations don't touch > anything GPL". This is sadly becoming more and more true; the more pushover-licensed software exists, the more corporations can issue blanket statements forbidding copyleft. I think this needs to be countered with a propaganda campaign showing how copyleft can be better for business than pushover, without reference to end user freedoms (that greedy corporations care nothing about). > Mention the dangers of proprietary software and they'll say it doesn't > matter if the program in question is practically better. There's been a new meme gaining popularity, citing the historically poor "user experience" of free software, compared to that of well-funded proprietary software: "If the user can't use the software, the freedoms it provides are useless." I tend to agree that this makes sense, and conclude that software freedom is necessary but not sufficient to give the user freedom. GPL-haters however argue that free software fails users, and well-funded proprietary software better serves them. (Example: "It's fine that Slack is proprietary, because it's a vast improvement over the experience of using IRC, the communities are better and more welcoming.") (I know that's about services, not programs, but the sentiment is the same.) > Mention existing famous GPL projects and they'll argue that some of them > didn't switch to GPLv3 (like Linux and Blender). There is of course Linus' defense of the GPL2. "What about tivoization? I don't care if companies do it, if people don't like it they just won't buy their products." (Heavily paraphrased.) This infuriates me. How's that working out for us, eh? I probably have six different manufacturer-abandoned devices in my home with critical security flaws that I can't fix, that a GPL3 Linux would have remedied. > 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 I think they're too long; for Internet argument with people who are already prone to saying "I don't have time to care about licenses" we need bumper-sticker sized defenses, that then perhaps link to GNU articles for more information. I know I've suggested this before and then failed to act on it (for lack of time) but I think it would be good to enumerate/categorize each of these common fallacious critiques of the GPL on the libreplanet wiki, one per page, so they can be easily responded to, and our best responses can be iteratively refined. You can then say to the person "I've heard that many times before, here's a concise statement showing the flaws. [link]" > and will only result in > ad hominem attacks against their author, Richard Stallman. This can be certainly frustrating but to a rational, unconvinced observer in your audience, I think that weakens their own argument. > 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! I find it useful to remember: if you're arguing with a in a public forum, your job is _not_ to convince the other person, but instead to convince those among the audience who remain undecided. The best way to do that is by calmly and politely refuting misinformation with evidence. Demonstrate how our position is well-reasoned and protects against specific harms, and how theirs is based on poor assumptions or misinformation, or show that their argument only works when someone shares their particular values and presumptions (like: companies won't screw over an individual, profit is more important than the end user's freedom, etc.) I think this is a very important discussion because silicon valley startups love pushover-licensed software and what the "open source" idea has done to free software. It's all too easy to convince someone who doesn't know any better: "See how simple the MIT license is? Freedom for everybody, no headaches, it's obviously best." I think it's very important for us to get out in front of this with _specific descriptions_ of how permissive licenses are abused to hurt users. This attitude seems to be the "new normal" among young programmers and many tech communities (Ruby, Javascript.) This venture capitalist has become quickly popular due to her efforts to find ways to better fund "open source" projects (to benefit the venture capital funded startups that rely on them), and recently wrote this "history" positing the idea of a "post open source" generation who no longer care about licensing: https://medium.com/@nayafia/we-re-in-a-brave-new-post-open-source-world-56ef46d152a3 I'm worried that she's correct about the shift in attitude toward licensing, even if she's disastrously wrong that it's a natural progression that should be embraced rather than countered. It's what happens when a generation of programmers have grown up listening to claims about "open source" promoted by fantastically wealthy startup CEOs of companies they want to work for or run. And I'm sure tech companies who want to control their users are salivating over it just as much as they are the "post-pc era" (the ed of "tinkerability"). I apologize that I turned this into a disorganized ramble.
