[epistasis]

> What freedom does a user of a software have if all the open source code is used by some proprietary software?

Exactly the same freedom that the user has if that proprietary software did not use the GPL software. It's unchanged. These two worlds do not differ, either the proprietary product doesn't exist, or it reimplemented whatever code was GPLd. The GPL has had no positive impact, there is no more source code available.

Meanwhile, the GPL has restricted the freedom of users from distributing the code as part of a different project.

The GPL is not about freedom for users, it is about control for the original authors. It is about making sure that nobody benefits from the GPL code without making all the rest of the code GPL. Now you may say, that this control of users and programmers means there is more freedom for users. I don't know how, but presumably because there is now more GPL code out there than if it had been an open source license. THAT'S the assumption and the leap that I do not believe, based on the data at hand. I do not believe that the GPL makes more source code available than BSD.

And further, I take umbrage at the unwillingness to even acknowledge that the GPL denies the freedoms granted by open source licenses, all because "freedom" has been narrowly redefined into one thing only: the "freedom from" somebody else using your code without contributing back the changes. Which is a lot like the "freedom from" somebody else using your code without paying you. "Restrictive" means less "freedom," just using a different word that is not loaded with peculiar definitions.

Compared to something like BSD, the GPL is about freedom for the code authors to restrict use of the source code. That is absolutely 100% fine! Go to town! But don't tell me its about user freedom, that's not OK. It makes no sense at all to me. It comes across to me like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. IMHO, history has proven that the "user freedom" arguments about the GPL are wrong, it's about "programmer freedom." People and companies, including me, use GPL when we want to make code available but still want to control it. It's all about having less freedom for people that use the code.

[BjoernSchiessle]

> I don't know how, but presumably because there is now more GPL code out there than if it had been an open source license. THAT'S the assumption and the leap that I do not believe, based on the data at hand.

One example which disprove you believes and whatever data you refer to is the Objective-C compiler. NeXT wouldn't have released it as Open Source if gcc wouldn't be GPL licensed. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C

Further it sounds like you want to argue that the GPL is not a Open Source license. This is also wrong by all reliable sources, e.g. the Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/licenses

[epistasis]

It seems that the key part of your source is:

>In order to circumvent the terms of the GPL, NeXT had originally intended to ship the Objective-C frontend separately, allowing the user to link it with GCC to produce the compiler executable. After being initially accepted by Richard M. Stallman, this plan was rejected after Stallman consulted with GNU's lawyers and NeXT agreed to make Objective-C part of GCC.[7]

Given that both NeXT and Stallman changed their minds on this issue, I'm not sure that you can argue that Objective-C would not have eventually been open sourced. Especially given Clang.

I'm not sure why you perceive that I think that GPL is not Open Source. Quite the contrary. I'm basically arguing that "Free" software misses the point of open source software. Which is in counter to these very well known opinions:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h...

And primarily I object to Stallman's hijacking of the term "free" where the only thing I see is control.

[jumpwah]

The FSF defines freedom as the four freedoms. Copyleft is about preserving those four freedoms. Copyleft is still free software in terms of the four freedoms. Sure, you could take freedom as being able to do completely anything (or more things than just the four freedoms), but this is like saying the declaration of human rights is bad because it doesn't give you the freedom to enslave others.

So the question comes down to whether or not you think nonfree software is a bad thing. If you don't think nonfree software is bad, then how does it hold that you're saying you care more about user freedom than those who use copyleft?

To me, those who really like and care about freedom to use, study, modify and share software have no problem with copyleft. The people that seem to have a problem with it seem to just want to deny users that freedom. That's really what it is all about. I don't know how on earth you came across this as being like "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength", when not having the four freedoms in the case of nonfree software is the real slavery here. And copyleft prevents such nonfree software.

TLDR haiku by RMS:

    Using GPL
    is encroaching on our right
    to encroach on yours

BTW, the LGPL, GPL and AGPL licenses are all "open source" in the sense that they are approved by the OSI, who are the ones who created and defined the term "open source" in the first place. So saying the GPL is not an "open source" license is technically incorrect and confusing.

[phant0mas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxIEDNyZOkA&feature=youtu.be...

Martin Fink, EVP & CTO of HP on why we should use the GPL

[epistasis]

I'm not seeing a "why" in here, just a "do this". There are no "why"s that are specific to any features of the GPL.

[phant0mas]

Well I am clearly seeing a "Use a copyleft license so a community can be created by making other users share their modifications".

That is a feature of the GPL!