Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throwaway50203 2048 days ago
> There's a lot of software that I would like to use in my day job that I can't touch because it's GPL. This is by design.

Good: the license is working as intended.

> I have no sympathy for FAANG, but that happens to be correct. GPL is explicitly political in its intent.

Don't be cheeky. The sentence was [ push the narrative that MIT is "practical" and GPL is "political" ]

The MIT is equally political - just siding with the freeloaders.
2 comments
dnautics 2048 days ago
For some people the fundamental problem with the GPL is that it is entirely dependent on the political structure that they believe to be flawed. If you are for copyright abolishment, using the GPL is cynical at best, hypocritical at worst.
link
throwaway50203 2048 days ago
> GPL is cynical at best, hypocritical at worst

It's not different from soldiers taking weapons from the enemy they are fighting. A pretty common tactic.

Fighting fire with fire. Where's the hypocrisy?

link
dnautics 2048 days ago
Sure, but in war there is at least an exit plan (a way for eventually not having to kill anymore), even if it's shitty and ill-planned. If you are in software freedom for the purposes of abolition and you pick the GPL, you are allying yourself with people who NEVER want to give up copyright, because it lets them "exert control" over the end user, e.g. corporations, so your ally has a very strong real vested interest against what you take as a desired end goal.

What does the endgame look like for an abolitionist?

link
2Gkashmiri 2048 days ago
One quick question. GPL forces downstream users to disclose their source code and changes. Does it also force them to push those changes or improvements upstream or not ? As in, I make an improvement to a software and I am selling and also giving source code but am I supposed to push my changes back up or not?
link
codeguro2 2048 days ago
The restrictions of the GPL only kick in when you distribute your binaries. You have the freedom to run and modify the source as you wish. The only rule is, "The source code travels with the binaries" - meaning /if/ you choose to distribute it, and you may choose who you distribute it to, that those who receive the binaries must also receive the source code and can take full advantage of the GPL just as you have.
link
a1369209993 2048 days ago
It specifically doesn't require that for logistical reasons. See, eg, the "desert island test" from DFSG. If you aren't able to contact upstream to send them your changes, such a requirement would effective forbid you from making changes to the software.
link