How does the GPL stop you from creating proprietary software products? You can license proprietary equivalents of GPL software for any components you need. If you can't afford to do that then you have a business problem not a license problem.
Conversation
You misunderstood me - while technically possible, the ability to incorporate GPL software into proprietary software products is severely restricted. And yes, having to use out-of-process extensions to avoid the GPL propagation to proprietary code is limiting.
1
Maybe you misunderstand me. You have choices. You can choose to build products out of GPL software and comply with it's licenses or choose to build products out of proprietary software and comply with it's licenses.
4
GPL restricts usage and is a close cousin of those non-commercial licenses. Permissive licenses do exist.
Complying with licenses is itself a choice. GPL violation is the software equivalent of pirating a movie. Many people choose not to respect software licenses anyway.
2
1
2
GPL doesn't restrict usage, just distribution. You can do whatever you want with GPL software including incorporating it into a new program. You just can't share it with someone else unless you give them the same rights to the whole program.
Everything else is fud.
2
2
You're playing on the words here - yes, the GPL is applicable at distribution time, but having to distribute essential components of your software separately comes with several restrictions on how you can use it, the first one being that you can't link it statically.
1
As a user I don't distribute software. As a developer I do.
Claiming that a developer distributing software is part of the use of software is playing tricks with words. If you don't understand the distinction then I'm not sure how else to explain like... computers... to you.
2
Hahaha, thanks for the condescending explanation! You see, the primary consumers of *source code* are... developers! Maybe it wasn't the case originally, but in today's world, the "users" you are talking about use prebuilt software, they almost never build it from source.
2
But if you must insist on that specific definition of "users" that aren't developers - I reject it entirely. Why? Because an open source license should protect the rights of the developers first. You may disagree, but I value my own rights as a developer more than as a user
1
THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. If you care more about the 30M developers in the world than the 8B users you should choose software that isn't under a Copyleft. Please! Everyone (especially you) will be very happy.
1
That's not the case at all. I'm not really interested in further engaging with someone being so thoroughly dishonest and manipulative. You're demonstrating what I said earlier when I said that the toxic Free Software cult is the biggest downside to the GPL.
Why do you register trademarks if you think government enforcement of IP is wrong and just exists to harm the vulnerable?
1
Primarily to stop malicious people who previously filed fraudulent copyright claims over our work from doing the same with trademarks.
1
1
1
Show replies