GPLv3 Alienating Developers? No Way
I saw an article on /. where the author seemed to have no real clue about Free Software. I just wanted to rebut this uninformed argument.
The author essentially tries to say that developers want software with promiscuous licenses and they don't care about defending themselves against tivoization and patent pacts. Because of this, he says that the current direction of the GPL/FSF is alienating developers by restricting them. Yes, it restricts them from doing things that restrict the Freedom of their software. But these restrictions have no ill-effect on developers who do not wish to restrict their users.
From his point of view, a developer chooses a license for his/her software, or wants the software with which they are working to have a particular license, for purely their own purposes so they can have access to as much source code as possible. That is simply not the point of the GPL. That is the point of open source. The primary purpose of the GPL is to ensure the 4 basic software freedoms for the users of the software under which it is covered.
The two new clauses in GPLv3 about tivoization and patent pacts are restrictions, but the restrictions they impose are to ensure the Freedom of the software. This is no different than not letting someone release GPL-covered software without its corresponding source code. That is a restriction, but it is not one that is debated as handcuffing Free Software developers as the author tries to portray the tivoization and patent pact clauses.
As far as what developers want, they should choose the GPL for their software because they want their software to be Free. They should not choose the GPL for their software if they only care about themselves and don't care about Freedom. It seems like the author only cares about himself and doesn't care about Freedom, so the GPL is not for him. If he thinks developers feel the same as he does, then they shouldn't use the GPL either. But if you care about ensuring the Freedom of your software, then the GPL, version 3 or otherwise, is for you. It is not going to alienate or restrict you if your intentions are for Freedom.
I personally trust the GPL, version 3 or later, with protecting any and all software I write to be Free. By choosing the GPL for your software, particularly if you adopt the "version x or later" clause, you are placing the Freedom of your software in the hands of the FSF. You are most likely not fully aware of all the ideas and implications of the license, but you know that the ultimate goal of the FSF is to ensure Freedom of software, and that goal will be adequately represented in your software.
The author essentially tries to say that developers want software with promiscuous licenses and they don't care about defending themselves against tivoization and patent pacts. Because of this, he says that the current direction of the GPL/FSF is alienating developers by restricting them. Yes, it restricts them from doing things that restrict the Freedom of their software. But these restrictions have no ill-effect on developers who do not wish to restrict their users.
From his point of view, a developer chooses a license for his/her software, or wants the software with which they are working to have a particular license, for purely their own purposes so they can have access to as much source code as possible. That is simply not the point of the GPL. That is the point of open source. The primary purpose of the GPL is to ensure the 4 basic software freedoms for the users of the software under which it is covered.
The two new clauses in GPLv3 about tivoization and patent pacts are restrictions, but the restrictions they impose are to ensure the Freedom of the software. This is no different than not letting someone release GPL-covered software without its corresponding source code. That is a restriction, but it is not one that is debated as handcuffing Free Software developers as the author tries to portray the tivoization and patent pact clauses.
As far as what developers want, they should choose the GPL for their software because they want their software to be Free. They should not choose the GPL for their software if they only care about themselves and don't care about Freedom. It seems like the author only cares about himself and doesn't care about Freedom, so the GPL is not for him. If he thinks developers feel the same as he does, then they shouldn't use the GPL either. But if you care about ensuring the Freedom of your software, then the GPL, version 3 or otherwise, is for you. It is not going to alienate or restrict you if your intentions are for Freedom.
I personally trust the GPL, version 3 or later, with protecting any and all software I write to be Free. By choosing the GPL for your software, particularly if you adopt the "version x or later" clause, you are placing the Freedom of your software in the hands of the FSF. You are most likely not fully aware of all the ideas and implications of the license, but you know that the ultimate goal of the FSF is to ensure Freedom of software, and that goal will be adequately represented in your software.
Labels: gpl
posted by Joe at
1:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home