| Regarding "True freedom is allowing others to extend/improve the code for their own uses." Can I correctly conclude, then, that you are enthusiastically supportive of people who violate copyright by making and giving away gratis copies? A fan of people who violate EULAs by reverse engineering? Approving of anyone brave enough to defy trade secret laws? I am always a little surprised at the earnestness with which the counter-libre "open source" propaganda embraces as freedom a handful of very artificially erected rights that rest on state brutality and nothing else. Further, that in the "open source" view, to resist that state brutality in order to protect users, share, and study power -- these are supposedly acts against freedom. re: "True freedom is allowing others to extend/improve the code for their own uses. I prefer 'open source' because it fosters the degree of freedom that the GPL only superficially claims to promote." What is clear is that you promote your freedom to rob others of freedom, with the help of state violence. The freedom you advocate is a negative freedom: a bondage you want to (or want your employer to) impose on others. |
I'm a library author. Not some hack who copies other's code at will. I have never, and never will violate the license of another project. GPL/LGPL or otherwise.
I license my libraries under MIT so there's a guarantee that my copy will always be free for others to use. If some malicious actor tries to overwrite my copyright and assert ownership I can always prove prior art. That's the whole purpose of copyrighting original works.
If they choose to reverse engineer and/or modify my source to produce something better, power to them. Maybe I can learn something from their implementation. Assuming that my implementation is the 'one true' best possible implementation that will ever exist is downright egomaniacal.
If I slack off on maintenance and somebody else creates a fork/derivative to continue development, awesome. I'd rather have my project live on and remain useful to others than deteriorate into obscurity. I won't live forever but the thought that something I created may one day live on beyond me as a legacy to my effort would be an honor.
-----
I'm not a fan of GPL/LGPL because it's a minefield of legal restrictions and once a project is licensed as GPL/LGPL with more than one contributor, it's impossible to change.
I'm not a lawyer, I've wasted more time than I care to admit researching the subversive effects of choosing the GPL/LGPL for a project.
It idea that code I produce may some day be used to subvert future users and/or a creators of derivative works just feels ethically unsound.
-----
"What is clear is that you promote your freedom to rob others of freedom, with the help of state violence."
Not sure how you can justify making such terrible and base assumptions about my character. Launching a barrage of 'ad hominem' attacks doesn't lend strength to whatever cause you think you're fighting here.
From my experiences, the world isn't out to get you. At best it's made up of people trying to make the best with what they have. At worst it's universally indifferent.