> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor.
So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software.
Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more correct).
You can't have half freedom -- there is no ambiguity. Either you are free to do what you will with what is given to you, or you are not. There is no free with restrictions; that's called a catch.
To be clear, too, what the FSF says and what those who subscribe to the belief say are often two different things, as evidenced in other places in this thread. What pains me the most is that any criticism of the GPL is automatically interpreted as trolling.
>> If some wants to use it in proprietary software they cannot, because if they did they would be unable to then share it with their neighbor.
> So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software.
This is a common misconception with the GPL: you are actually allowed to use it together with proprietary software, including using it "in" proprietary software, as long as you use it, yourself. You just cannot distribute the combined software.
As a result, the GPL improves your freedom as a user, but may encroach on your value-added-reseller freedoms. This is per design - the GPL allows the original author(s) of the software to limit the value that other people who do not own it can derive from selling it.
This is something that is considered perfectly normal with other software - no one would expect to be able to use Microsoft Windows, or Oracle's database, in his proprietary software in the sense of "bundling it without giving Microsoft, or Oracle, anything in return".
Since we live in the real world, where freedoms of different people may be mutually exclusive, ensuring the freedom of the user in all possible cases means to limit the freedom of the value-added-reseller in some of the possible cases. Complaining about this is a bit like saying that public libraries are limiting your freedom because you cannot sell the books you borrow from them.
You exist. You can make choices. You can act. In that sense, you are free, until you're dead. You can do whatever you want with software.
In a more practical sense, if you want to redistribute GPL-licensed software, you aren't free from the restriction of the software's license in a legal sense, because the license is your only legal means to redistribute the software.
When are you ever free to do what you wish with software? Answer, when it's your original work... and you don't violate software patents, even the ones you never heard of... and it's not export controlled or you're not exporting it... and its main purpose is not to induce copyright infringement (we are losing that one in the courts today, sad but true)... and you are not using the software to commit other crimes... AND SO ON.
Get real, there are all kinds of legal restrictions on your ability to "do what you wish" with software, even public domain software. Some of them even make sense.
It might be more accurate to call it "freed" software. The goal of the GPL is to uncage domesticated software and let it roam wild forever, never collared again. The people who distribute software in this fashion won't let you put it back in the zoo.
And again, FSF is not saying that users are free to do what they want. You are not free, according to them. They say that software is free, in the sense of the software freedoms. That sentence essentially would only parse to $0 before Stallman came along.
The problem is people attack the GPL hold up the BSD as if it's without restrictions. But it is (granted, the restrictions are fairly simple to address, their are restrictions places on you, and if you don't follow them, you are in the same boat as the GPL).
> There is no free with restrictions
In this case, the only option is to write it yourself, as even things put into the public domain can have a catch (Actually, I think their is a license that basically does with you'd think putting something into the pubic domain does, I just forget the name).
So basically...
> So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software.
This is true of pretty much all licensed code, including BSD.
> This is true of pretty much all licensed code, including BSD.
Couldn't agree more.
Don't call it Free, and don't try to associate Free with the GPL at the expense of everything else (which seems to be the push). Libre too. Because if anything, the GPL is more restrictive than alternative licenses.
> the GPL is more restrictive than alternative licenses.
So, you don't like the GPL. That's fair. However, not everyone has the same goals as you.
Your main contention at the start, if I understood you correct, was that, we should be sharing and not repeating ourselves. I write something, publish it, share it, and you should be able to use it for your project without having to worry about licenses. And you see that as more free then with licenses that have arduous restrictions, like the GPL (Because, while the BSD does have restrictions, they are fairly easy to overcome). If I'm wrong with your overall view here, apologies.
Essentially, you want what people who use the GPL want: a community of sharing. You want it via choice, GPL users want it enforced. And that's where GPL users see the value in a license: they help push your agenda. So while BSD gives other people more freedom to do what they want with the code, it does nothing directly to push people toward that way of thinking.
My personal opinion is it's all fairly annoying. I just want to program. =)
Sometimes I almost feel like Stallman intentionally used the word 'free' in the license to confuse people. Many people think that it means you can do whatever you want with it and get in legal trouble down the line. This is why I won't use any GPLd libraries in any of my projects. It's too risky.
> as even things put into the public domain can have a catch
This is, by definition, untrue: If something is in the public domain, it is without an owner. It is unowned. Anybody can do anything they want with it, including using it in proprietary software for money and passing it off as their own work. (Assuming nobody is enforcing a code that bans plagiarism, which is totally orthogonal to copyright.)
If there is a catch, then the work is not in the public domain at all. Being owned by someone but released under a liberal license does not put something into the public domain, as the work is still under copyright.
In short: Public domain vs. copyrighted is a binary distinction. 'Freedom' is a continuum on multiple axes.
It's my understanding that in the past, things have lapsed into the public domain as copyright expired. However, laws changed, and these public domain items were put back under copyright protection. I cannot remember where I read it, or under what context.
That being said, what I said was, afaik, incorrect. If something is specially put into the public domain, it's there. The things I read about weren't explicitly put into the public domain by the copyright owner. They just fell out of copyright.
The switch to is arguably good because in French there are two words that map to the English free --- libre = free as in speech, gratis = free as in beer. So libre is less overloaded than free, making it less ambiguous.
Am I the only person to notice the parallels between GPL and government ? BSD-style licenses can be compared to anarchism. Everyone can do what he wants. I haven't heard about anarchism producing nice societies except on small scale.*
However, a lot of people don't think a community without rules is a healthy or safe one. Freedom of one person ends where freedom of another person starts. So we sacrifice some freedom by agreeing to comply with the law. Law limits people, sure, but few argue it shouldn't exist. Only parts of it are debated (the implementation).
I think sacrificing some software rights GPL-style is good in the long term ! "I want to have the code for myself" vs "Everyone should have the code". GPL is just the more altruistic license. Not all restrictions are pointless just like we probably all agree law is beneficial for society at large. We should spend more time thinking what are the results of GPL restrictions, not automatically wave it away "it's a restriction, therefore it's wrong".
* I would really like to know some examples of successful anarchistic communities. The bigger, the better. You can make anything work on small scale.
Anarchism means 'without rulers' not 'without rules'. If you really want to grade licenses on how anarchist they are, the GPL is obviously more conducive to a world without rulers than BSD-style licenses.
For a semi anarchist society on a large scale, check out Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. This was anarchism in the original sense of the word though, and not in the recent US sense of the word (US liberterians/anarcho-capitalists seems to long for a return to something akin to feudalism rather than freedom in my opinion).
So he isn't free to do what he wishes with the software.
Free is one of the most overloaded words in the English language, and I know that at least some of the Free Software movement agrees due to the prevalence of libre software (as if switching to French somehow makes it more correct).
You can't have half freedom -- there is no ambiguity. Either you are free to do what you will with what is given to you, or you are not. There is no free with restrictions; that's called a catch.
To be clear, too, what the FSF says and what those who subscribe to the belief say are often two different things, as evidenced in other places in this thread. What pains me the most is that any criticism of the GPL is automatically interpreted as trolling.