Conversation

Replying to

@DanielMicay

@awakecoding

and 3 others

You are only "restricted" from making the software proprietary (i.e., not give others the permissions you were given).

Quote Tweet

Matt 'msw' Wilson

@_msw_

Aug 28, 2021

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.

Replying to

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.

Replying to

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.

Replying to

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.

Replying to

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...

Replying to

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.

Replying to

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.

Replying to

I find the take of the GPL as restrictive quite novel.

Replying to

You may not like it, but the GPL *is* a restrictive license, and no amount of justification that has been repeated ad nauseam over the years changes that. "it's easy to comply with" "it's for the greater good" "it's a compromise" "proprietary software is evil" and all that jazz

Replying to

I think the discontent with the (not quite positive) label of "restrictive" for the GPL family is that its restrictiveness is at a meta level: it restricts one's rights to further limit/withhold code distribution. In contrast, "permissive" often allows those limitations.

Replying to

You're misrepresenting the goal of the GPL as the reality of the GPL. It's inaccurate spin. It heavily restricts usage far beyond what you're claiming. It's not true and it's unfortunate that Free Software folks push lies instead of acknowledging the drawbacks of the approach.

1:47 AM · Oct 12, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

GPL heavily restricts usage within entirely open source software. The restrictions result in license incompatibilities. Permissive licenses don't have those kinds of license incompatibilities since they don't restrict usage of the code. GPL restrictions very regularly hurt FOSS.

Replying to

You may think that the ends justify the means in this case but don't keep trying to pretend that it's not restricting usage including for open source software. GPL is even incompatible with itself: GPLv2-only projects like Linux can't be mixed with GPLv3 along with other issues.

Show replies