I wasn't being cynical when I asked if it makes sense to you the fact that people write free software and give it away for free. I just wanted to know if there's any obvious reason that explains that to you.
It's not my intention to judge why proponents of "permissive" licenses think the way they do. My hypothesis is that they see software exclusively as a way to make money. Economists are still obsessed in simplifying human behavior as rules of incentives -> results, until it's become part of our western cultures. It follows that we only act in our own economic interest, and also that nobody would work for free. That's where some people find difficult to explain free software. The same people don't think the end-user's rights to ultimately own the software we provide are valuable. They are consumers before users. Regarding the book, you won't find any direct references to software licenses. I recommend it because it advocates we treat our users differently. Anyway, we agree we disagree. That was never an issue. I wish you a great day too! 2017-09-21 19:36 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com>: > We will have to agree to disagree. > > I have been a passionate user of open source software for over 20 years. > Are you really saying that proponents of permissive licenses don't > understand why people write free software and give it away for free? Really! > > I passionately disagree with the statement of "All software should be GPLd > in the first place". This is one of the biggest reasons I passionately > dislike the GPL. GPL is goodness and light. All else is evil incarnate. Ugh! > > I am not going to defend unethical business practices. But that is not a > defense of the GPL or an argument against permissive licenses. I am not a > fan Microsoft or Apple, et al. I am a fan FreeBSD and Linux. However I do > not believe all closed source or proprietary software is wrong or evil. > > I am working my way through the book you suggested. But so far I fail to > see where it makes the argument for the GPL and against permissive licenses. > > For the record. I am not a professional programmer. All software I am > working on if I were to release it (or when) will be under a permissive > license, unless it is a port of GPLd software. I am not in the business of > software. I am an empowered user. Open source software empowers me more the > proprietary software. Permissively licensed software empowers me more than > GPLd software**. That is not currently the case for everyone and every > situation. One day it we may come closer to that being true. But it takes > time. And it takes proper motivation and resources. > > **There are many situations that I cannot use GPLd source, but can use > permissively licensed source. MIT/BSD empowers where, GPL does not. Here in > this community, with this software. GPL is a no go. It is a show stopper. > MIT/BSD is welcomed and wanted. Many other communities are likewise. > > As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I doubt that anything above > persuades you in any way. > > Regardless, I wish you well and have a great day! > > Jimmie > > > > > > On 09/21/2017 10:39 AM, Jose San Leandro wrote: > > I personally don't care about the interests of big corporations cheating > with end-users' rights. If they were my potential customers, or any > intermediary which is afraid of not being able to do business with them due > to their obsession with restricting end-users' rights, then I'd probably > have a conflict of interest. In that case, I could think of sacrificing > ethics for food temporarily. But I'm not in that business, and I don't want > to. > > I won't blame the GPL instead of the "old culture" of doing business by > forcing customers to do only what you want them to do, and make them pay > for any upgrade some of them could do themselves otherwise. > > Distributing works with GPL restricts the options to other developers > using your product or library. No doubt about that. But ethically, that > "freedom" only helps the old model of doing software. All software should > be GPLd in the first place. > > There's a book that indirectly illustrates my point, and one I > enthusiastically recommend: Badass users [1]. > > Anyway, we could go on and on. It's a matter of pragmatism vs ethics of > software. > > Usually, people sharing your "classic" point of view of the business of > software don't understand why people write free software and give it for > free. > Is that your case? > > [1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920036593.do > > 2017-09-21 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com>: > >> On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote: >> >> [SNIP] >> Its horses for courses. No one viewpoint fits all circumstances. Another >> way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a developer more freedom >> to combine libraries with different licenses. >> >> I do like this radical simplification I bumped into... >> "Another way of looking at it is that you’re picking a license based on >> what you are afraid of. >> * The MIT license is if you’re afraid no one will use your code; you’re >> making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as possible. >> * The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your code, >> but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls. >> * With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting from >> your work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and patent trolls)." >> [https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl] >> >> ...which aligns squarely with Pharo - our greater fear is people not >> using it. >> >> >> I think the GPL one looks right. Fear, anger, offense if someone has the >> possibility of using their software and not contributing back. To me I >> think it doesn't work as much as they think. It doesn't take into account >> the free will of people to walk away and completely not use their software. >> I personally don't even look at GPL licensed sources unless there are none >> other available which is very rare. I don't want the knowledge or >> understanding of that code tainting other code I write. >> >> MIT often means, we don't care, do what you want, just don't blame us. >> We don't care if you take it and use it in closed source proprietary >> money making big corp software. >> We don't care if you take it and use it and keep it to yourself. >> We don't care ... Just don't blame us for any problems. >> >> However, we would love your buy in on open source philosophy and >> contribute back where you are able. We understand you have software which >> is business critical, proprietary and can not be open sourced. We also know >> that you probably have software which has no business specific (your >> business) code which is releasable. And we see many, many, big and small >> businesses doing so today. Close off what you must, open what you can. >> >> I don't think most of us are afraid of no one using our code. PostgreSQL >> has no such fear. SQLite which is public domain has no such fear. And we >> could go on and on. Python, etc... >> >> I personally am very much in the camp of I want people to contribute >> because they want to contribute. Not because I have a stick called the GPL. >> But rather because I have the carrot of all of the benefits derived from >> open source software. I am carrot oriented, not stick oriented. >> >> Jimmie >> >> >> > >
