>> What do you think would be a good way to counter the argument "GPL >> restricts developers" ? >> >> I don't think it's a restriction that you have to share your >> modifications. If anything it enables your upstream, the other >> downstreams from that and the downstreams from you. >> >> >> This is somehting I said on reddit recently: >> >> If I tell you that you can give me hug if you also pat me on the back >> while doing it, am I restricting your freedom to hug me? > > The "pat on your back" affects only the person receiving the pat, but > copyleft affects everyone. Also, a "pat" is not a visually strong image, > while causing all derivatives to be GPled is very strong.
The whole point was for it to not have a strong image. It makes no difference for the giver but it makes the hug a lot more enjoyable for the receiver. > A more apt metaphor would be to give someone a cake along with its > recipe and ask them to share the recipe with everyone who, having tasted > the cake, asks for it, even if they modify the recipe. Sure, that is a lot better. > Arguing with developers is really hard. Here is the most common response > they give: > > "Look, I love the *idea* of free software, but I need to feed my family, > and GPL software doesn't let me do that because companies would stop > supporting me the moment I adopt it. Developers gotta eat too." This discussion wasn't about making money. It's about freedom to do whatever you want with other people's code, even making it proprietary.
