|
|
|
|
|
by smsm42
5114 days ago
|
|
"it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back" Actually, this phrase can be understood in two ways: 1. I want to ensure that the software is improved and the improvements are shared.
2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used. The difference between these two are the difference between OSS and FSF. I think the latter doesn't have better moral claim at improving the world than the former, since it bundles positive environmental change (making better code available for more people) with control over other people's behavior (I won't allow you to benefit from the change unless you act as I like). It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views. Both approaches are valid, but the latter doesn't have a base to feel morally superior to the former. |
|
This is false. You are free to use and improve it, even if you don't want to give your improvements back.
But then you are just not allowed to distribute the software with your changes as closed source.
> It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views.
That is a crap analogy.
The people who don't want to open source their improvements to GPL'd code aren't charities, they are businesses who want to make money of other people's work. The GPL provides a kind of compensation to these people for their work. Which is the guarantee that all (distributed) improvements will be GPL'd as well.
That's one of the main reasons why I like the GPL. I know I will in some form be compensated for my labour (as opposed to BSD), in the sense that any improvements to it will come back to me.