GPL is source available in the first place because it heavily restricts use and clearly doesn't meet their own requirements for 'Free Software'. The surrounding context doesn't determine which kind of license it is. Free Software movement is just a bunch of cognitive dissonance.
Conversation
Restrictive GPL licensing naturally turns into these non-commercial licenses. Saying some restrictions are good because you agree with the intent but other restrictions are bad because you don't agree with the intent doesn't change that it's heavily restricting usage either way.
1
You are only "restricted" from making the software proprietary (i.e., not give others the permissions you were given).
Quote Tweet
Replying to @wewegomb and @alyssarzg
The GPL is completely business friendly, so long as business objectives are compatible with Free Software objectives. The GPL has created virtually impossible-to-measure business value by unencumbering businesses, as software users, from the restrictions of proprietary licensing.
2
1
It also restricts mixing it with lots of other open source software, prevents selling devices with an immutable root of trust even as an optional variant of a product, etc. It has a ton of usage restrictions. The users of source code are developers and that's who it restricts.
2
1
I think there are many ways to meet various design requirements of consumer electronics devices while still respecting the rights that I think the other of the device should be given.
2
5
Daniel hits on a key aspect that always bothered me: who the real "users" are. The GPL doesn't affect me as an end user, but it does affect me significantly as a developer, especially if my intent is to potentially create proprietary software products.
4
You are free to do so with software that is not licensed in a way to propagate and protect Software Freedom.
It simply is not a policy goal for the GPL to enable you to create software that does not offer Software Freedom to those you give copies...
1
1
It can't protect software freedom when it restricts freedom to use the software for whatever you want. I don't see much difference from these new restrictive non-commercial licenses and other restrictions. It's a difference in values with same kind of approach to enforcing it.
1
Many other people don't see the difference either. Tolerance for GPL leads to tolerance for these new restrictive licenses. The vast majority of people who are not familiar with any of this stuff aren't going to buy into the Free Software movement's claims that it's different.
2
2
A non-commercial usage license is probably how most non-developers would have thought open source software worked anyway.
Can convince them copyright is bad at a whole, but you're not going to convince them that the arcane and convoluted take on this from the FSF makes sense.
1
The non-commercial licensing approach where the developers get to directly sell the software and earn a living makes a lot of sense to people.
Most people see how open source developers get treated / exploited as a bigger ethical problem and the whole convoluted FSF take.
Pushing restrictive licenses will lead to increasingly broad adoption of restrictive licenses. The only way you're going to convince people not to go down that path is convincing them that copyright is a bad idea. Many people won't follow any of these licenses anyway.
1
This would probably be best achieved by something like the BSL from .
(I personally find the FSF take on the GPL family not convoluted at all, though.)