I think it's important to clarify what is actually being argued here - it's not simply a pro-vs-anti GPL, as there are several opposing viewpoints, some from a closed source point of view, others from a "more free" point of view (e.g., BSD). Also some criticisms don't apply to the GPL in general, just to particular circumstances.
As far as I can tell, there's:
1. The GPL is not as good/free/open as licences like BSD.
2. The GPL is not as good as closed source, and is even harmful in some way, in ways that licenses like BSD aren't.
3. GPL is a bad choice for libraries.
4. RMS is an aging hippy with silly or even dangerous political ideas.
Point 1 is perfectly reasonable. Though I don't think one should be critical of the GPL, at least no more than of closed source. Yes, it's an interesting paradox that on the one hand, the GPL is better at keeping source open, but it requires that it's "less free" from the point of view of a programmer wanting to use the code.
Point 2 I don't understand at all - I don't see how someone choosing to release their code as GPL is wrong or makes the world a worse place.
Point 3 I do see the point of - but note that many "pro GPL" people agree too, and indeed this is why we have the LGPL. In my experience, LGPL seems to be far more common than GPL for libraries anyway.
Point 4, I'm not going to debate - just to note that this is a separate issue to the merits of using the GPL licence. But as for ideology, I don't see how "Everyone should use BSD/etc, you're evil for choosing GPL" is better than "I choose to release the software I wrote under GPL" - it seems to me the only ideology actually being pushed in this thread is of the BSD/etc type.
Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
I think even Marxists can agree that this is technological communism. Communism has always hurt the little guy the most.
What has communism got to do with anything?
The GPL plays very much along with the rules of our capitalist society, and requires the concept of copyright ownership to the individual, rather than being owned by everyone.
Quote:I'll admit, I've considered violating the GPL in the past. It's a calculated risk, I feel. I doubt that the GPL will hold up in a US court, especially with some of the bad press it has received.
You are saying that _copyright violation_ won't hold up in court? That's all that matters, because if you don't accept the terms of the GPL, that's what you'll be guilty of.
Quote:Fortunately, there are very few really good, really innovative libraries that are exlusively to the GPL. Most of the time, an alternative library under the BSD-license is available, or relicensing is available from the creator.
But the LGPL would be fine too.
Quote:No, it is the reprecussions of using the library that hurts them. If the GPL gains more support, it could very easily become the ONLY license available. At that point, what choice does a small company have when reimplementation is far too costly?
Note that your argument about the little companies is exlusively an argument against using GPL for libraries (i.e., point 3 in my list). You've admitted yourself that few libraries are exclusive to the GPL - most are LGPL or other licences. So, even if the GPL and LGPL gain support, it seems highly unlikely that the GPL would be the only licence for libraries.
But even if it is, think what will happen - if there is commercial demand for non-GPL libraries, then programmers will be falling over themselves to write such libraries, because they'd make a killing in profit!
Lastly, I presume you point equal amounts of criticism at the "big companies", for not making their solutions available to the little companies?
Quote:Which is the bigger tragedy? You losing a fun development project because of a closed source library, or a small company losing a profitable devleopment project because of an open source library?
The better comparison is a small company losing a profitable development project because they can't use a proprietary library (either it's not available for licence, or the cost is too high).
Quote:If you don't want people to profit off of your hard work, then don't give your work away for free. Can I put a chair on the side of the road, with a sign that says "Free for the taking... but not if you're going to re-apholster it and sell it!" Discrimination based on philosophy, ideology, or politics is surely as bad as discrimination based on race, sex, or religion.
Discrimination?! It's as much discrimination as it is when any company lays down terms about how their libraries or code can be used. Just because some GPL advocates have some silly ideology (i.e., point 4 in my list) doesn't mean that the GPL itself is discriminating according to ideology.
The "if you can obtain it for free, you've given up your right to copyright" is also absurd - by that logic Internet Explorer and Opera are in the same situation as Firefox, but do you think I'd get away with modifying IE and reselling it? Do you think I can happily use a closed source library in a commercial product, on the basis that "If they didn't want me to use it, they shouldn't have let me download it for free"? If a music artists gives away a CD, does that mean they've revoked rights to the music and I can resell it or use it in a commercial product?
Quote:Original post by jbarcz1
But if you do that, then you can't use GPLed libraries in this version, right?
I'd have to check the licences of libraries I'm using, including non-GPL OS licences, and closed source licences. For example, there are many closed source libraries which are "free for non-commercial use".
Bearing in mind that most (that I use, anyway) libraries are actually LGPL rather than GPL, I actually am far more likely to find closed source libraries being a stumbling block to me making money.
Quote:Original post by Sneftel
On multiple occasions, this code has then been incorporated into GPLed products. This means that while they can freely use my code, I can't use their code. Nice, huh?
Yes, exactly, this is why many programmers release under the [L]GPL rather than MIT etc! Similarly, a company could swipe your code and include it in theirs, and you'd have no right at all to use it!
Quote:GPL advocates constantly throw up this fallacy. "Having to pay for everything to the big corporations you mentioned" is NOT the only other alternative. The GNU Public License was neither the first nor only open source license, nor is it the least restrictive.
But if there are other OS libraries, then the "little guys" can use those, and it's still not true that the GPL is harming them.
It is capn_midnight, not a "GPL advocate", who is painting a world where GPL is the only thing libraries are released under.
Quote:Original post by DrEvil
The fact that we're having these arguments to begin with is evidence of what a crappy license it is.
No, it's evidence that some people arguing against it don't have a clue what the GPL actually says.
Quote:There's a million other licenses more developer friendly that don't protect the free source any less.
Such as? (Not saying you're wrong, I'm curious.)
