Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbsdp | Hacker News Reader

> Users -- those who are actually interacting with a running version of the software -- lose nothing with the GPL. On the contrary, their rights to the code are secured.

They've been denied the 'right' to use proprietary extensions to the software. Those extensions may provide more benefit to the user than the open source software alone: see also, Mac OS X.

That's no less real a 'right' than the 'right' to have access to the source code, which is something they've never lost because open-source always remains open-source, and they remain free to only use open-source software.

> So yes, the GPL does impose restrictions in specific cases to secure rights in the general case.

Those rights are already secured, because nobody forces users to use proprietary software. If they only want to use software where code is available, they have every right to do so.

View on HN

You are, once again, either misunderstanding or willfully misrepresenting everything that's being said. Users aren't being denied anything, because proprietary software doesn't exist under the GPL. Developers and distributors do lose the chance to keep their code closed. The GPL protects users, not developers.

You seem to think downstream developers have an entitlement to release proprietary software, even if it goes against the wishes of the original authors. News flash: devs aren't forced to use GPL'd software, either. If you want to keep your software proprietary, you're free to use something under another license, or write something under your own copyright.

Really, it's not even about being "open source" per se; the motivations of the GPL go much deeper than simply making the code available. But you obviously don't agree with those, from the other thread.

Are users of GPL software able to combine it with proprietary plugins?

Plugins are where it gets weird. Technically there should not be proprietary plugins at all with the GPL, but it might depend on the interface or manner of linking (eg, would a HTTP-based "plugin" API be considered a derivative work?). For some cases, licensing the original software under LGPL may be sufficient to support proprietary plugins.

Ultimately it's a judgement call by the original author and what use-cases or freedoms he/she wishes to support. Hopefully they've thought that far ahead, though. It's not an easy question for the majority of the population that doesn't quite lean as far as RMS does.

Yes. The GPL doesn't restrict usage, only redistribution.

Yeah I guess this is why it's okay to ship binary blobs independently from the kernel.

> The GPL protects users, not developers.

The users can already choose to not use proprietary software, so what is it protecting them against? Themselves?

> You seem to think downstream developers have an entitlement to release proprietary software, even if it goes against the wishes of the original authors ...

No, I just believe that the GPL is intellectually dishonest. It's about controlling other people's means of production, with the end-goal of creating a communist ecosystem in which it's essentially impossible to not participate due to inherent market entry costs.

The users can already choose to not use proprietary software, so what is it protecting them against? Themselves?

It's simplistic reasoning to ignore the social effects. For example, non-copyleft free software is extremely vulnerable to the EEE strategy, since any proprietary vendor can take the code and re-release it with extra or changed features under a proprietary license, which might almost extinguish the original software for lack of interest, forcing the user to have to choose between the Free version or the "upgrade", which is actually compatible with everyone else's.

No, I just believe that the GPL is intellectually dishonest. It's about controlling other people's means of production, with the end-goal of creating a communist ecosystem in which it's essentially impossible to not participate due to inherent market entry costs.

What happened to the person choosing to not use the software? Suddenly when it's the poor proprietary developer, he's being controlled by the bad copyright holders?

And how is the GPL intellectually dishonest? Replacing proprietary software by giving free software developers an advantage is an explicit goal of the GNU project. How is it dishonest?

In any case, you're fighting the wrong windmill. It's not the GPL that gives anyone such power, it's copyright. It's that government-granted monopoly that allows control over other people's means of production. The solution to your problem is simple: fight for its elimination.

> And how is the GPL intellectually dishonest? Replacing proprietary software by giving free software developers an advantage is an explicit goal of the GNU project. How is it dishonest?

The usual explanation is "four freedoms" and giving users freedom.

Leveraging network effects to create a communist shared ownership of the means of production is the honest explanation of the GPL, and that has nothing to do with 'freedom', and everything to do with network-enforced Marxist ideals.

> * It's that government-granted monopoly that allows control over other people's means of production. The solution to your problem is simple: fight for its elimination.*

I have no problem with copyright, and I don't want to forcibly eliminate the GPL. I'd be happy for it to die an honest death after careful and rational consideration by the industry.

The usual explanation is "four freedoms" and giving users freedom.

No, that's what all Free Software does. The GPL is an hack to extend them as widely as possible, by giving Free Software an advantage over proprietary code.

Leveraging network effects to create a communist shared ownership of the means of production is the honest explanation of the GPL, and that has nothing to do with 'freedom', and everything to do with network-enforced Marxist ideals.

There's no ownership here, only State granted monopolies. Property is an institution for allocating scarce resources; copyright is a government granted privilege designed to "promote Progress". The GPL is a way of defusing the crony system that takes away people's control of their own property - their machines. You're seeing Marxism where it doesn't exist.

On a related note, it's interesting to think that the USSR eliminated private property, yet they established and kept copyright - with fairly extensive terms, in fact.

I have no problem with copyright

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" ;)

(By the way, I'm honestly sorry you're being downvoted. I find the attitudes of these cowards who downvoted based on disagreement rather disgusting.)

I downvoted him this time. Not only because I disagree, but also because espousing misinformation of that sort is genuinely damaging -- it's downright wrong, and calling something communistic carries a lot of negative connotations (whether justified or not).

But the worst part is, that argument sounds plausible at first glance. The marginal cost of data distribution is near-zero, and we've hit information post-scarcity. Reconciling that with traditional economic models is awkward. RMS/GNU already carry enough baggage, and without understanding their motivations, it's very easy to attach incorrect labels to them and their goals. You've been very eloquent in describing those, so thanks.

Well, then I think you should've replied and wrote that when downvoting.

Personally, I don't think downvoting is the appropriate response. Particularly, I don't think it would have the desired effect, since someone who might be affected by the supposed misinformation is unable to understand the reason behind the downvote, so they might make the same assumption that I did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com