Hacker News Reader

Comment by millerc | Hacker News Reader

You seem to forget the primary reason why the GPL came to be, the principle that caused RMS to rewrite EMACS as an open source product in the first place: if a piece of software is closed, or in this case "not open enough", they want it rewritten under a new license.

This story only seems to be a case of political pressure to do so, regardless of the effort a rewrite may cause. In this regards, FSF is clearly putting the value of the license above the value of the software itself.

This is why I can't endorse the GPL: it is mainly motivated and designed to deny authority over software ownership, not for actual openness. If somebody really want to open up a piece of software, Public Domain is the way to go.

View on HN

no, the GPL is mainly motivated and designed to encourage openness and collaboration among authors. It removes authority: if you wish to use the code, do whatever you want with it, as long as you share the changes with the rest of the people that are interested in it.

There's the problem right there: "as long as". If I give you candy, I should have no say who gets to eat it - or even cook with it if he fancies. I don't like gifts with strings attached, so I don't cause others to suffer them.

This comment is basically nonsense. Not saying I agree or disagree, it just makes no sense as a response to my comment. I was making a factual correction. The GP suggested that LibreCAD change their license. I pointed out that doing so is not possible and not likely to become possible. That is all.

You are discussing the impossibility of a simple relicensing due to components owned by a third party. I am pointing out that the FSF has a history of going to great lengths rewriting software, or pressuring people to do so, just so the resulting product falls under a license they find acceptable. Can you explain how am I being nonsensical?

In a lot of countries, it's impossible to put something in the public domain immediately.

MIT, BSD and to some extent Apache2 are close enough that the distinction is meaningless.

That's an excellent point. Would you have any advice/thoughts on how to license software in those countries with the same effect as public domain, and also how to plan ahead so that it eventually becomes public domain?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com