Hacker News Reader

Comment by _ph_ | Hacker News Reader

I haven't claimed that I am free to do what I wish to do, nor do I ask for that. The point is, that the GPL contradicts what you stated before "yours ends where mine starts". GPL tries to exactly cross that line.

View on HN

The "your end where mine starts" means precisely that your ability to do whatever ends when you decide to use my code, because that is where my freedom to impose certain requirements on your usage of my code starts.

There's nothing the GPL tries to cross, that's exactly what that quote means in general society as well.

For example, you're free to wear the same shoes you do outside in your own house, but if you're coming into my own house, I have the freedom to require you not to do that.

Yes you have. Telling me to wear different shoes once I visited your house is something different. So if you think that is a reasonable request, then I have to tell you that I will refrain from visiting your house. And advise others to be very considerate about visiting your house.

What makes telling you to wear different shoes any different? I am just asking you to abide by my rules if you're going to make use of my resources.

The GPL does the same.

And yes, you're free to refrain from visiting my house if you disagree with what I am asking of you, same as you're free to not use GPL code and therefore not abide by its requirements.

The only thing you are not free to do is come to my house and ignore my rules, likewise use GPL code and ignore the GPL. That's it.

I don't mind abiding to your rules when I come to your house and while I stay in your house. I find it bizarre that you think that you can impose rules onto me after I left your house and even ask me to impose the rules onto others.

How do you feel about NDAs or official secrets?

What about them? I have no fundamental problem with them. The only reason I would sign an NDA is, when I am doing paid work.

But aren't these examples of having to follow someone else's rules after you've left their house?

So what? It is part of the deal, and as I wrote, I would sign an NDA only for a good reason, that is usually a paid job. Also, the NDA concerns only the specific task and not other things I am doing at that time or later.

If you're using my GPL code, you never 'left my house'. In fact, you're still inside.

  > What makes telling you to wear different shoes any different? I am just
  > asking you to abide by my rules if you're going to make use of my resources.
  >
  > The GPL does the same.

Couldn't agree with you more, but Microsoft and other proprietary software makers have the same right (to dictate what people can do with their software). For some reason, GNU believes (as RMS has stated in various talks) that not sharing software is immoral.

Now, is not sharing software immoral because (1) it can be copied at no cost, or (2) because you can't morally tell people what to do with the bits once they have a copy of it ?

(1) is nonsense because creating the software has a cost, and anyway, just because something was free to you doesn't mean you can't charge others for it.

(2) is contradicted by the GPL if it tells you what you can do with the bits after you have them.

You can make the argument that free software results in higher quality software, but it's wrong to make a case for it morally as GNU does.

GPL never says you can't charge for software.

As for immorality, you can read the justifications here starting from item 4 (Voices from the Revolution): https://www.drdobbs.com/the-ethics-of-free-software/18441458...

Thanks for the link - that's an interesting read which I'll have to work through more thoroughly later.

  > GPL never says you can't charge for software.

My point is not that the GPL is contradicting itself, but that the GNU philosophy contradicts the GPL.

There is a quote in item 4 at that link you shared, which says:

  > I think that to try to own knowledge, to try to 
  > control whether people are allowed to use it, or 
  > to try to stop other people from sharing it, is 
  > sabotage.

Putting a paywall up is a method of control. I think I represented GNU's position fairly.

And where's the contradiction? GPL software is always open, the knowledge is out there, and people can use and share it.

The only thing you're not allowed to do is do a change and "close" it.

It's like you're begrudging freedom fighters their actions because they are violating the feudal rights of their historical oppressors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com