On Being Pro-GPL
just_another_sean writes: Christopher Allan Webber, recently returned from OSCON, shares his thoughts on the GPL and why he dislikes people pitting one type of software license against another. He says, "I am not only pro-copyleft, I am also pro-permissive licensing. The difference between these is tactics: the first tactic is towards guaranteeing user freedom, the second tactic is toward pushing adoption. I am generally pro-freedom, but sometimes pushing adoption is important, especially if you're pushing standards and the like. But let's step back for a moment. One thing that's true is that over the last many years we've seen an explosion of free and open source software... at the same time that computers have become more locked down than ever before! How can this be?
And notice... the rise of the arguments for permissive/lax licensing have grown simultaneously with this trend. ...The fastest way to develop software which locks down users for maximum monetary extraction is to use free software as a base. And this is where the anti-copyleft argument comes in, because copyleft may effectively force an entity to give back at this stage... and they might not want to. ... Copyleft's strings say, 'you can use my stuff, as long as you give back what you make from it.' But the proprietary differentiation strategy's strings say, 'I will use your stuff, and then add terms which forbid you to ever share or modify the things I build on top of it.' Don't be fooled: both attach strings. But which strings are worse?"
And notice... the rise of the arguments for permissive/lax licensing have grown simultaneously with this trend. ...The fastest way to develop software which locks down users for maximum monetary extraction is to use free software as a base. And this is where the anti-copyleft argument comes in, because copyleft may effectively force an entity to give back at this stage... and they might not want to. ... Copyleft's strings say, 'you can use my stuff, as long as you give back what you make from it.' But the proprietary differentiation strategy's strings say, 'I will use your stuff, and then add terms which forbid you to ever share or modify the things I build on top of it.' Don't be fooled: both attach strings. But which strings are worse?"
You're being needlessly pedantic.
"We reserve the authority to restrict distribution and sue you if you don't follow our requirements" How do you do that? With a license.
How do you enforce said license? With copyright law.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
"you can use my stuff, as long as you give back what you make from it"
I've read the GPL, and I feel that this is by far the most beautifully to-the-point and most honest real-world representation about the requirements of the GPL that was ever put down in a single, brief sentence.
Some people might disagree with this, and I'm sure those people who do would also argue that the act of jumping of a 1000ft cliff without a parachute being fatal is a bald-faced lie (because technically, it's the a priori sudden stop that kills you; so you're really just spreading FUD about jumping from great heights, as jumping itself has no immediate requirement of death).
Some people think GPL means you can use my stuff as long as you put my name in the credits and keep my stuff free. But GPL means,"If you use my stuff, you can't charge for your stuff and have to make all your code public." So if I write a 100,000 line of code game, and I am on opengameart.org and want to use someone's pretty butterfly picture under GPL, I can't use that picture unless I release years worth of source code. Thankfully there is a work around of contacting artists directly and asking for a different license. Some get surprised they didn't pick a friendly license to begin with since GPL gets pushed so much as the correct for sharing license.
God spoke to me
GPL is the right thing to ensure freedom. With BSD you'll get fucked over by some asshole company at one point or another and there is nothing you can do against it. People who use your can even sue you.