That’s also false. The GPL doesn’t only restrict non-free licences, it restricts any licence change on the derivative work. If I fork a GPL project and want to redistribute my changes with a free licence such as MIT, the GPL will prevent it to protect itself. It’s an authoritarian licence that doesn’t respect your freedom.
I fail to see how the share-alike nature of the GPL is “authoritarian” and “doesn’t respect your freedom”.
It is built to guarantee the freedom of the user. It’s imperfect, as it has to work within the constraints of the copyright system, but it’s a hell of a lot better than licenses like MIT for propagating freedom to end users.
Here’s a real world example:
If I want to root my android device with KernelSU or build a custom ROM, I need to recompile the heavily customised kernel built by the vendor for my specific device. Because Linux (the kernel of android) is under the GPL, the manufacturer is compelled to give the user the same freedoms that were given to them, which means I can download the source code and do this.
If Android were based on, say, the FreeBSD kernel instead, this would be impossible. There would be very few, if any, android custom ROMs, because the vendor could, and would, withhold the modifications they made to the kernel.
You’re again assuming that the GPL only restricts non-free licences. This is not the case. If I add a feature to a piece of GPL software, I can’t use BSD on my new code even though the new code isn’t derivative work. Hell, if I write a completely independent piece of software that links to GPL software, my new software has to be GPL even though not a single line of GPL code was used. All of this also applies to free licences like BSD. The GPL doesn’t protect freedom, it protects itself.
You’re assuming that the GPL protecting freedom and protecting itself are mutually exclusive. They aren’t. Again, the GPL is written to ensure the code remains free forever.
Also, I’ve already pointed out the flawed nature of licenses like MIT and BSD, and if the GPL could be relicensed to them, it would provide a very easy way for proprietary developers to strip the freedom from the GPLed code when passing a derivative on to their users.
It is unfortunate that it cannot be relicensed to other copyleft licenses, as that would not pose such a problem, but without an explicit list of licenses it can be relicensed to I’m not sure that’s even legally possible under copyright.
It is mutually exclusive. You cannot “protect freedom” and impose restrictions on freedom. Also, no, you just explained how the licences worked and didn’t provide a single argument as to why having the freedom to licence your work however you want is a bad thing. The GPL doesn’t ensure that the software stays free, it ensures that it keeps control of the software and all future additions to it even if they’re completely unrelated.
You’re being extremely disingenuous, and you know it.
It is mutually exclusive. You cannot “protect freedom” and impose restrictions on freedom.
It protects ALL freedom EXCEPT the freedom to take away freedom from the original code. If you are desperate to allow this, write your code from scratch instead of using GPLed code, nobody is stopping you.
Also, no, you just explained how the licences worked and didn’t provide a single argument as to why having the freedom to licence your work however you want is a bad thing.
The GPL absolutely does not prevent you from licensing your work however you like. You can write BSD code and put it in a GPL program no problem. The only condition is that if you use GPL code you must not take the freedom away from it. If you don’t like that, replace the GPL code and suddenly the project is completely BSD or whatever have you.
And I did give you an example of why pushover licenses aren’t great. Because it would prevent custom ROMs on android from being possible.
The GPL doesn’t ensure that the software stays free, it ensures that it keeps control of the software and all future additions to it even if they’re completely unrelated.
This is a ridiculous assertion.
A) The GPL is a license. You say “it keeps control” as if it’s some person or organisation controlling the code. It isn’t. I could say the same about the BSD license, it “keeps control” by forcing the user of the code to leave all copyright notices intact, even if it’s combined into code of a different license. How horrible. Why can’t the code be under my terms where I get to get rid of attribution?
B) If you make an addition to GPLed code, it absolutely is “related”.
C) As I said earlier, the GPL does not stop you licensing your code however you like. See above.
Also, copyleft is just newspeak for copyright.
No, it’s a play on words because it uses the copyright system for the opposite of which it was originally intended. It was intended to lock down “intellectual property” to it’s owner, but the GPL uses the functionality of copyright law to do the opposite and force that users of the code always maintain the freedom to modify, share, and redistribute copies.
Are you a proprietary software developer who relies on permissively-licensed code for your work, by any chance?
That’s also false. The GPL doesn’t only restrict non-free licences, it restricts any licence change on the derivative work. If I fork a GPL project and want to redistribute my changes with a free licence such as MIT, the GPL will prevent it to protect itself. It’s an authoritarian licence that doesn’t respect your freedom.
I fail to see how the share-alike nature of the GPL is “authoritarian” and “doesn’t respect your freedom”.
It is built to guarantee the freedom of the user. It’s imperfect, as it has to work within the constraints of the copyright system, but it’s a hell of a lot better than licenses like MIT for propagating freedom to end users.
Here’s a real world example:
If I want to root my android device with KernelSU or build a custom ROM, I need to recompile the heavily customised kernel built by the vendor for my specific device. Because Linux (the kernel of android) is under the GPL, the manufacturer is compelled to give the user the same freedoms that were given to them, which means I can download the source code and do this.
If Android were based on, say, the FreeBSD kernel instead, this would be impossible. There would be very few, if any, android custom ROMs, because the vendor could, and would, withhold the modifications they made to the kernel.
You’re again assuming that the GPL only restricts non-free licences. This is not the case. If I add a feature to a piece of GPL software, I can’t use BSD on my new code even though the new code isn’t derivative work. Hell, if I write a completely independent piece of software that links to GPL software, my new software has to be GPL even though not a single line of GPL code was used. All of this also applies to free licences like BSD. The GPL doesn’t protect freedom, it protects itself.
You’re assuming that the GPL protecting freedom and protecting itself are mutually exclusive. They aren’t. Again, the GPL is written to ensure the code remains free forever.
Also, I’ve already pointed out the flawed nature of licenses like MIT and BSD, and if the GPL could be relicensed to them, it would provide a very easy way for proprietary developers to strip the freedom from the GPLed code when passing a derivative on to their users.
It is unfortunate that it cannot be relicensed to other copyleft licenses, as that would not pose such a problem, but without an explicit list of licenses it can be relicensed to I’m not sure that’s even legally possible under copyright.
It is mutually exclusive. You cannot “protect freedom” and impose restrictions on freedom. Also, no, you just explained how the licences worked and didn’t provide a single argument as to why having the freedom to licence your work however you want is a bad thing. The GPL doesn’t ensure that the software stays free, it ensures that it keeps control of the software and all future additions to it even if they’re completely unrelated.
Also, copyleft is just newspeak for copyright.
You’re being extremely disingenuous, and you know it.
It protects ALL freedom EXCEPT the freedom to take away freedom from the original code. If you are desperate to allow this, write your code from scratch instead of using GPLed code, nobody is stopping you.
The GPL absolutely does not prevent you from licensing your work however you like. You can write BSD code and put it in a GPL program no problem. The only condition is that if you use GPL code you must not take the freedom away from it. If you don’t like that, replace the GPL code and suddenly the project is completely BSD or whatever have you.
And I did give you an example of why pushover licenses aren’t great. Because it would prevent custom ROMs on android from being possible.
This is a ridiculous assertion.
A) The GPL is a license. You say “it keeps control” as if it’s some person or organisation controlling the code. It isn’t. I could say the same about the BSD license, it “keeps control” by forcing the user of the code to leave all copyright notices intact, even if it’s combined into code of a different license. How horrible. Why can’t the code be under my terms where I get to get rid of attribution?
B) If you make an addition to GPLed code, it absolutely is “related”.
C) As I said earlier, the GPL does not stop you licensing your code however you like. See above.
No, it’s a play on words because it uses the copyright system for the opposite of which it was originally intended. It was intended to lock down “intellectual property” to it’s owner, but the GPL uses the functionality of copyright law to do the opposite and force that users of the code always maintain the freedom to modify, share, and redistribute copies.
Are you a proprietary software developer who relies on permissively-licensed code for your work, by any chance?