|
|
|
|
|
|
by eridius
3274 days ago
|
|
|
I just have to say, while I respect the work put into tools of the sort that you use, the first thing I do is see if it's GPL or not and if it is it immediately loses points (very nearly all of them), because GPL is awful. If I'm going to use a tool like this, I'm going to want to be able to check out the code, perhaps submit PRs, etc, but if it's GPL then I don't want to so much as look at the code because GPL is viral and aggressively removes so many developer freedoms. In fact, I genuinely don't understand the "freedom for the user" aspect. The only "freedoms" the GPL cares about are freedoms for developers (end users don't care in the slightest about whether they can get the source code, etc), but GPL is far and away the most restrictive license I've ever seen in terms of taking away developer freedoms. So when people say the GPL provides freedom for the user, it makes no sense, because what it's doing is taking away freedoms from anyone who actually cares about source access. In fact, all the GPL really seems to do is protect the "freedom" of the original developer to ensure access to any changes made by other people, at the cost of taking away the freedoms of all of these other people. |
|
|
1. "the GPL really seems to do is protect the "freedom" of the original developer to ensure access to any changes made by other people" The GPL literally does not do that, the "other people" only have to give the modified sources to people who get the binary from them; they don't have to give the modified sources back to the original developer. As a non-theoretical example, the Grsec guys only give their Linux kernel modifications to their customers, and do not give the modifications back upstream to Linux. It's about making sure that the end user gets access to the code, which I know you said is silly because the users "don't care in the slightest", but...
2. You re-defining user to be someone who doesn't look at the code is silly. Given a piece of software I have absolutely no intention of being a "developer" for, I would still like to receive the source code. I would like to be able to study it to figure out how it works, the same as when I took apart and studied clocks as a kid (an activity that didn't magically transmute me from a "clock user" into a "clock maker"!). When some software on my computer (or the computer of a friend or family member) breaks, I would like to be able to pop open the source and see what's going on, the same as when I pop the hood when something goes wrong with a car--I'm not interacting with that software as a "developer", just as I'm not interacting with the car as a "car maker". Sure, the fact that I am a developer means I'm pretty qualified to know what I'm looking at when I look at the source, just as being an engineer at an auto company would make me pretty qualified to know what I'm looking at when I pop the hood of my car. But fundamentally, the relationship I have with that software/car is that of a user, not that of a developer. And even if I weren't a programmer, I would want to receive the source, so that when it breaks, and I ask my nephew or whoever to look at it, that he can see the source and isn't locked out from helping me out. We don't call farmers "engineers" for fighting for the "right to repair" their own farm equipment; and we shouldn't call computer users "developers" for fighting for the right to repair their own computers.