Hacker News Reader

Comment by gillianseed | Hacker News Reader

You violate the rights which the GPL licence grants them, which is the rights to the source code of the actual binary they recieve, so that they can examine, modify and run their own versions of the actual binary.

In practice this works out well for developers who release their code under the GPL and want to enjoy any enhancements made to their code in return.

They will as 'end users' of any distributed modifications have the right to the source code of those modifications.

This way those modifications/enhancements aren't locked away from the original developer in a proprietary project.

View on HN

If users don't want to run binaries for which source isn't available, they are under no obligation to do so, and can simg choose to use binaries for which source is provided; no so-called ethical "right" to source code access is violated, as the source once released remains open source.

And developers who wants to create proprietary projects are under no obligation to use GPL licenced code. What is your point?

GPL licenced code comes with conditions, such as that of granting the end users certain rights, including the right to the source code of the actual binary they recieve.

Proprietary code by definition will not grant the end user access to the source code from which the binary they recieve was made, and it typically comes with the condition of monetary compensation for it's use.

In both these cases the 'end user' can choose not to use what is offered.

> In both these cases the 'end user' can choose not to use what is offered.

Exactly -- so what's the point of offering a 'right' the user already has, if it means taking away rights from developers?

Users can already choose to not use proprietary software, they don't need the GPL to enforce availability of the open aource software they use.

>Users can already choose to not use proprietary software

And developers can already CHOOSE not to use GPL licenced code, this part of your argument has no point whatsoever.

The GPL licence exist to grant the right of end users to examine, modify and compile/run the source code of the binaries they recieve.

The user does NOT 'already have these rights' with proprietary software.

When a developer licences their code under GPL it means that all recipients of the code in both it's original state or modified will have the above rights.

And again since developers will be 'end users' themselves once they recieve a binary containing modifications to their code, it creates an effective tit for tat mechanism where they will recieve the source code of any modifications.

There is no 'right' taken away from 'developers', they have no 'right' to use code other than under the conditions set upon it by it's owner, this holds true for all licences.

Users can also CHOOSE not to use proprietary software. You're taking away their right to choose to use your software in a proprietary context.

Nonsense, by that logic your proprietary software is taking away users 'right' to use your proprietary software in an open source context.

Your argument has nothing but holes in it.

> Nonsense, by that logic your proprietary software is taking away users 'right' to use your proprietary software in an open source context.

Indeed, it is. The difference is that we're not intellectually dishonest about it, and don't try to dress up the mutual exchange of value (user's money for our code) in some sort of ridiculous redefinition of "freedom", and we certainly don't claim to be "more free" than liberally licensed open-source software.

>and don't try to dress up the mutual exchange of value (user's money for our code) in some sort of ridiculous redefinition of "freedom"

Bullshit, this is what you've been trying to do during this entire discussion. You claim over and over again that the the user has the 'freedom' not to use proprietary software.

But when that same 'freedom' is directed at developers who has the same 'freedom' not to use GPL licenced code, then suddenly you say their 'rights' are being taken away.

According to you proprietary developers are somehow robbed of a 'right' when they can't use GPL licenced code, which is nonsense as the only right they have to use ANY code is by the conditions set by the code owner, be it conditions of a licence or conditions of monetary compensation.

Your hypocrisy shines through your entire line of poorly constructed arguments.

You dislike GPL because you as a proprietary developer can't use that code, which for some reason you think you have a 'right' to.

> You dislike GPL because you as a proprietary developer can't use that code, which for some reason you think you have a 'right' to.

You're being obtuse; I've never said what you claim. What I've said, repeatedly, is that the the GPL grants fewer freedoms than liberal licenses such as the MIT license or the BSD license; it doesn't "protect" or "grant" any "freedoms" that the MIT and BSD licenses don't already provide themselves.

What the GPL does do is restrict usage to enforce a quid-pro-quo relationship on its users, with the political goal of leveraging network effects to push a Marxist ideology of dismantling private ownership in favor of shared ownership of the means of production.

If the goal was 'freedom', then it would be enough to provide users with free access to your code; nobody can deny them that free access once it's provided. The goal isn't freedom, however, and painting it as such is both intellectually shallow and dishonest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com