Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by KingOfCoders 1898 days ago
Like I wrote in another comment, this would split the fact of "stealing" from "having a stolen object". Like "having the stolen object" does not harm anyone, the taking away is the harm done. I don't think this argument flies with anyone - it did not fly in kindergarten for me - and I'm not sure if RMS sees the world this way or it's only with child porn.

To play devils advocate here:

Taking GPL code into your product and selling it, the fact of selling your product is not harming the person who wrote the GPL code. But with GPLed code RMS has a totally different view than with pictures of nude children.
2 comments
sokoloff 1898 days ago
Having a stolen physical object of mine means I don’t have it. You are literally continuing to deprive me of the property by merely having it.

I can imagine reading an rms essay on how coming into my yard and taking my ladder without permission, using it without damage, and returning it before I noticed it missing imposed no harm upon me, so the taking of my property was not wrong, though the ongoing possession would be.

To your later-added devil’s advocate paragraph: rms is fine with you selling a product that includes GPL code and as far as I can tell always has been. What he’s not fine with is you imposing restrictions that prevent someone that you do sell the code to from effectively modifying or further sharing that product.

link
KingOfCoders 1898 days ago
If I copy your GPLed code you still have it.
link
sokoloff 1898 days ago
You added that part afterward in an edit and I was still replying to that part, but you’re right and that’s what rms is encouraging: that we both have the code and both have the freedom to learn, modify, and tinker on it as does anyone we convey the code to.
link
KingOfCoders 1898 days ago
Only with the consent the author == if my code is GPL, not if I'm copying the code into my proprietary code.
link
sokoloff 1898 days ago
Sure, it’s the L in GPL that gives everyone the right to use GPL code in their product under certain conditions as spelled out in the license.

Nothing in the license precludes the sale of such a combined work though, as in your devil’s advocate query.

I’m not even sure where the confusion or disagreement is in this sub-thread to be honest. The license is short and fairly clear; there’s ample additional “what does this mean for inclusion of GPL code in commercial products?” FAQs and a fairly large body of commercial products openly marketed which include GPL code in them.

[0] - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommercially

link
scbrg 1898 days ago
You misunderstand the point of the GPL. It's not there to protect the author of the code. It's there to protect the user of the code, i.e. the one you're selling the product to.

In your scenario, the user won't have access to the code they'd need to modify the product you sold them. That is the harm the GPL is designed to protect against.

link