[rian]

The GPL is a hack on copyright law.

If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law. The GPL is only as powerful as current copyright law allows it to be.

Don't hate on the GPL, it's satire. Hate on the last century of corporate-lobbied legislation that has granted unprecedented levels of power to copyright: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Sta.... E.g. Mickey Mouse still isn't in the public domain!

[dragonwriter]

> If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law.

Its quite possible to believe that existing copyright law represents exactly what government should do to manage IP in that domain and not believe that the GPL represents a choice people should make about how to use the rights provided under copyright law. (Note: I am not saying, in this post that I hold either part of that opinion, only that it is not inconsistent.) So I disagree with your claim "If you disagree with the GPL then you disagree with copyright law."

Believing that government should permit something is different than supporting the choice to actually use that permission in any particular way.

[rian]

It's possible but it's not logical!

If one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that any particular author wields it. If you think the author is abusing power, then that means the current copyright law is too broad, and if it's too broad you ultimately don't agree with the law.

[dragonwriter]

> It's possible but it's not logical! If one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that any particular author wields it.

No, if one supports the level of power that current copyright law provides for authors, then you must support the fact that it is legal for any particular author to wield that power within those bounds.

That doesn't mean you have to support every particular choice about how it is wielded, just as one's support for the freedom of speech from government censorship doesn't mean one supports every utterance that is outside the scope of what government may prohibit given that freedom.

If one's support for the government policy is on a utilitarian basis (as one example of a framework of support that might apply), one can support the government policy while opposing an action it allows simply because one believes any policy which would effectively constrain the action which one does not prefer would have other harms which outweigh the benefits of preventing the action at issue.

[rian]

> That doesn't mean you have to support every particular choice about how it is wielded

I never wrote you have to support how it's wielded but that it is wielded. Your freedom of speech analogy doesn't apply to what I wrote.

I agree with your last point, but I think that's exactly the job of lawmakers. Once you've found an abuse of the law, you refine the law. You don't just throw your hands up and say "well the pros outweigh the cons." Legislation isn't futile. In this specific case, copyright law has only grown more powerful without any significant negative feedback.

All I'm saying is, if you feel there is something wrong with the GPL, well it's not the only instance of copyright abuse and maybe you should focus on copyright law itself, not the GPL.

[tedunangst]

It's not possible for me to dislike the GPL for reasons unrelated to copyright abuse?

[xamuel]

Suppose for whatever reason (employer legal department, etc.) you can't use GPLd sourcecode.

You'll quickly find that GPL sourcecode is not just neutral to you, it's outright harmful. Why? Because if there's a strong project that's GPL'd, that disincentivizes anyone from working on a less restrictive open-source version of same. So now that funny "satire", as you put it above, is forcing you to reinvent wheels, when you could be using that effort to further improve the world.

[nmrm2]

when you could be using that effort to further improve the world.

Except that by "improve the world", you actually mean "make a quick(er) buck for ourselves".

By the same logic, your company charging for their software (or not open-sourcing it) is "outright harmful" to people who want to use your company's software to make themselves a quick buck for themselves.

Except that you can at least read and learn from the GPL code when making your own implementation. Somehow I doubt your GPL-hostile employer is taking even that small step toward improving the world.

[s73v3r]

Then you should convince your employer that they're wrong with that ban. If they don't wish to pay the fee for using the work of others, then they need to make their own, just like anything else in the world.

[c22]

Or rather, it's forcing your closed-minded employer to reinvent wheels. Is it possible to improve the world while working for an employer that cannot embrace GPL? Opinions on this subject differ.

[davidgerard]

No, your employer is forcing you to reinvent wheels. Employers hating the GPL are not some sort of natural law.

[rian]

Or in other words

The way you feel when you can't use GPL code in your startup

Is the same way I feel when I can't use Mickey Mouse or Mario for a toy in my toy company.

[xamuel]

That's not true. Using Mickey Mouse or Mario would allow you to profit from an enormous amount of brand name marketing.

It's more like you start a new pizza company and you're not allowed to use Stallman's Pizza Cookbook, which has some recipes you like. You can still hash out the recipes by yourself, with much annoying time and effort (and wasted food). Stallman's just not letting you benefit from his cookbook, because he thinks all pizza should be free.

[gpcz]

In this pizza recipe metaphor, are the recipes or the pizzas supposed to be the analogue to software?

If recipes, then the metaphor makes no sense. You can use the "recipe" that is LibreOffice to produce "pizza" that is work products that people would pay for (such as a lawyer drafting contracts, a consultant making spreadsheets, etc). Nothing in the GPL stops someone from profiting from the output of a GPL'd program.

If pizza, then I can only assume the "recipes" would be programs that produce programs, such as compilers or parser-generators. In that case the metaphor also falls apart, since GNU programs of that type have license exceptions that make the output of those programs (and the additional compilation files needed to run like libc and bison include files) usable without following the GPL.

[davidgerard]

I'm sorry, but this thread is Slashdot 2000 - your bad analogies should be to cars.

[patmcc]

>>It's more like you start a new pizza company and you're not allowed to use Stallman's Pizza Cookbook, which has some recipes you like. You can still hash out the recipes by yourself, with much annoying time and effort (and wasted food). Stallman's just not letting you benefit from his cookbook, because he thinks all pizza should be free.

No, you'd just have to share your recipes whenever you sold the pizza. You can still charge for the pizza (or not) if you want - and the guy who buys it from you can sell it or give it away or whatever.