[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.