[pbsdp]

> Your 'logic' is ridicoulus, GPL is no more 'enforcing' sharing than proprietary software is 'enforcing' non-sharing.

You call my logic ridiculous, and then you reiterate my entire point. The GPL is enforcing sharing in the same way proprietary software is enforcing non-sharing.

Whereas the MIT and BSD licenses provide just as many freedoms as the GPL, without enforcing anything. They are, defacto, more free, both for end users and end developers. End users are free to only use open-source products, if they so desire, and developers are free to use liberally licensed open source however they wish to, too.

> Overall your entire line of thought is clearly that developers should not be allowed to share open source unless they allow it to be used in proprietary code, because if they don't they cause 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry.

This is a strawman argument that has no basis in what I actually said.

I think people should be allowed to use the GPL, just like I think people should be allowed to advocate communism. I also think that we should do our best to demonstrate the fallaciousness of their arguments, because they have the capacity to cause significant harm to our industry.

> Whenever I come across someone like you I'm really glad the GPL exists as an alternative.

And whenever I come across someone like you, it is made apparent that the GPL is more of a religion and an a political statement, rather than a reasoned decision made from an understanding of the economic and human realities of industry and our society.

[gillianseed]

>You call my logic ridiculous, and then you reiterate my entire point.

No, the 'point' you've been trying to push during this entire conversation is that proprietary software gives the end user the 'freedom' to choose not to use it, but somehow you claim that developers don't have that same 'freedom' when it comes to not using GPL licenced code, which of course is a big lie.

>Whereas the MIT and BSD licenses provide just as many freedoms as the GPL, without enforcing anything.

Stop trying to muddy the water with the meaning of the word 'freedom', we've already established that GPL is about rights, these rights are not provided by permissive licences at all. Again, GPL licenced code assures that the source code will be made available to end users, permissive licences assures nothing of the sort.

>because they have the capacity to cause significant harm to our industry.

How can they cause 'significant harm' to our industry? Furthermore how has GPL caused the 'industry immeasurable harm' which you claim it has?

>And whenever I come across someone like you, it is made apparent that the GPL is more of a religion and an a political statement

Yes the good old communist/religious/political card which always gets thrown by GPL haters when their arguments fall to pieces.

And you're not even close, I've spent my entire professional career writing software which know in the vast majority of cases has ended up being proprietary. I have no problem whatsoever with charging for software, and unlike Stallman I see nothing unethical about proprietary software.

My viewpoint is that of a developers right to set any conditions they want for THEIR code, which includes permissive, proprietary or copyleft. If I as a developer want to release my code under a licence which makes sure that any recipients of programs using MY code will also have the source code to those programs available, then that is my right (under the legal system we have now).

It doesn't matter if my motivation is that of wanting the source code of any enhancements made to my code (most likely motivation from a developer perspective), or if my motivation is political/philosophical (FSF), I still have just as much right as any other developer to set the conditions for using my code.

And neither of these motivations are in any way inferior to your motivation of wanting to make money.

[pbsdp]

> No, the 'point' you've been trying to push during this entire conversation is that proprietary software gives the end user the 'freedom' to choose not to use it, but somehow you claim that developers don't have that same 'freedom' when it comes to not using GPL licenced code, which of course is a big lie.

No, that's not what I've said at all.

> Stop trying to muddy the water with the meaning of the word 'freedom', we've already established that GPL is about rights, these rights are not provided by permissive licences at all. Again, GPL licenced code assures that the source code will be made available to end users, permissive licences assures nothing of the sort.

The permissive licenses DO provide those rights, if the users choose not to use proprietary software. If they want to use software for which the code isn't provided, they can do that too. Either way, you've given them nothing they didn't already have.

> How can they cause 'significant harm' to our industry? Furthermore how has GPL caused the 'industry immeasurable harm' which you claim it has?

The network effects of GCC/GDB being 1) very expensive to reproduce, and 2) easier to contribute to then replace, and 3) GPL'd, held back the advancement of everything from developer tools (IDEs, static analyzers, debuggers, disassemblers) to JIT implementations for 20+ years.

> Yes the good old communist/religious/political card which always gets thrown by GPL haters when their arguments fall to pieces.

"Why Software Should Not Have Owners"

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

If this essay was any more Marxist, it would be carrying a red flag and speaking Russian.

> And neither of these motivations are in any way inferior to your motivation of wanting to make money.

They're inferior because they're promoted based on intellectual dishonesty and false premises:

- Claiming that you're "granting freedoms", despite the fact that people already have them.

- Employing economic network effects by which the intention -- and end result, should the GPL succeed -- would make it not economically feasible for people to make a choice as to whether they wish to engage in your communal ownership of the means of production.

Fortunately, enough people have seen the logical holes in the GPL's premise that that the attempt to assume control over individuals' use of software, through economic clout of network effects, has not succeeded, despite setbacks such as GCC.

[gillianseed]

>Either way, you've given them nothing they didn't already have.

Of course you do, if you licence your code under GPL you ensure that all end users of programs using your code will be given the source code to those programs aswell.

>The network effects of GCC/GDB being 1) very expensive to reproduce, and 2) easier to contribute to then replace, and 3) GPL'd, held back the advancement...

More nonsense from you, nothing prevented anyone from forking GCC and 'advancing' it, in fact that's exactly what happened, and later that fork became the main project.

This is the exact opposite had GCC/GDB been proprietary, no one could fork it.

And GCC certainly hasn't prevented any proprietary competition either, instead it's existance has made sure that the proprietary competition have had to give better value to consumers as there has been a free alternative, which has certainly helped advance compiler development in general.

>If this essay was any more Marxist, it would be carrying a red flag and speaking Russian. GPL is a software licence, not a political manifesto. Are you saying GPL became the most widely used licence in the world because all developers who chose to licence their original code as GPL did so because they were politically motivated? Hardly, I'd say the vast majority chose GPL because of it's tit for tat mechanism which ensured them access to modifications of their code.

The largest and most successful cooperatively developed software project in the world: Linux, had GPL chosen as it's licence by it's creator for exactly this purpose, not for political reasons.

And as it's a licence GPL has no impact at all unless a developer _chooses_ to licence their code as such and another developer _chooses_ to use it.

>Claiming that you're "granting freedoms", despite the fact that people already have them.

I've already said that I don't agree with the word 'freedoms', again it is 'rights' which is what they should have been called as it is rights which is passed along to the end user. And no, these rights are not something end users are entitled to with permissive licences, they don't have the right to get the source code with binaries which uses permissively licenced code. You can stop this bs now.

>Employing economic network effects by which the intention -- and end result, should the GPL succeed...

GPL is already a success, it's a viable licence choice, used in a ton of software. Permissive licences are also successes, it doesn't matter if GPL is used more, permissive licences fill a need and are therefore widely used aswell.

Also these licence types (copyleft, permissive) are typically used for different type of software, copyleft is usually the choice for full solutions/applications, while permissive licences are typically used for component/framework code. As such reflecting how they satisfy different needs amongst developers.

And there will always be a place for proprietary software aswell as long as they produce value for users which makes it worth the 'cost' (typically monetary). And if you can't compete with something someone gives away for free, then you really should be doing something else.

The 'industry' doesn't owe your proprietary projects open source code or protection from competition of free alternatives.