undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBrian_K_White1y ago0 comments

The gpl sets terms, employing the right to set terms.

The fact that those terms are not for money is the implimentation detail.

The fact that there are terms that you are required to agree and adhere to, OR live without the goods, that is not.

Just like the normal terms for money, your choice is you can take it according to the terms, or leave it. Not just take it and ignore the terms.

It's definitely a special level of low to steal something that's already free.

0 comments

exe341y ago

> It's definitely a special level of low to steal something that's already free

stealing from the commons, basically.

PaulDavisThe1st1y ago

No, absolutely not the commons.

If you want a mental metaphor of what the vast body of GPL'ed code is, think of a very, very large multinational corporation.

If you want to use their code, you have to join the company. Fortunately for you, all you have to do to join the company is to agree to use the same license for you own code as the company already does. If you agree to that, you are free to use any or all of the code "owned" by the company.

However, if you do not agree to the company's terms - i.e. you wish to use a different license - then you are not a part of the company and have no legal right to use any of the company's code. You may of course continue with your own software, but you cannot benefit from the amassed resource that is the company's own code (though of course reading it is allowed).

Brian_K_WhiteOP1y ago

The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons. I don't know why you imagine otherwise unless you're confused about public domain or something.

There is no joining any company or anything remotely like that no matter how hard you try to squint. The single rule in GPL is no more than any other usage-of-commons rule like don't pee in the pool or litter in the park.

The park is still free for anyone to use, you just can't fence off a part for yourself and start operating your tire-burning business in it. The body of people who either first donated it or the tax payers who voted for it set some terms for usage, and now you can either enjoy the goods under those terms or not.

But what's interesting is how some people have this kind of reaction and try to come up with this kind of argument over the act of being generous.

Are you sure GPL isn't even worse than you said? Why be so nice? Are you sure it doesn't also eat babies?

1 more reply

chgs1y ago

You want to use gpl code go right ahead. Want to modify it? No problem. Ignore the optional license. It isn’t a usage license.

I make changes to gpl code all the time. I never release the changes because my coding is far too embarrassing. Nobody forces me to release anything. I can and do compile it with gpl incompatible links, not a problem.

I just don’t distribute it.

wizzwizz41y ago

> The fact that there are terms that you are required to agree and adhere to, OR live without the goods, that is not.

Uh, no there aren't. The GPL's requirements only kick in when I try to redistribute: that's why the license is in a file called COPYING. It's not an EULA: you don't need to agree with it to use GPL'd software.

kube-system1y ago

Not technically. GPLs requirements kick in the moment you make a copy for you own use, it's just that there aren't any requirements that apply under those conditions.

But they'd have to take effect right away, otherwise you'd be illegally copying copyrighted software :). It is the GPL license that grants personal use without restriction.

globular-toast1y ago

You didn't make that copy, the person you got it from did.

I don't need to be granted permission to run a program on my own computer.

1 more reply

Brian_K_WhiteOP1y ago

Those are the terms, correct. Using the code in pretty much any way you want without redistributing is adhering to those terms.

Why do you try say that means there are no terms?

The terms are ridiculously generous. But there are terms and those are they.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

exe341y ago

> It's definitely a special level of low to steal something that's already free

stealing from the commons, basically.

PaulDavisThe1st1y ago

No, absolutely not the commons.

If you want a mental metaphor of what the vast body of GPL'ed code is, think of a very, very large multinational corporation.

Brian_K_WhiteOP1y ago

The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons. I don't know why you imagine otherwise unless you're confused about public domain or something.

But what's interesting is how some people have this kind of reaction and try to come up with this kind of argument over the act of being generous.

Are you sure GPL isn't even worse than you said? Why be so nice? Are you sure it doesn't also eat babies?

1 more reply

chgs1y ago

You want to use gpl code go right ahead. Want to modify it? No problem. Ignore the optional license. It isn’t a usage license.

I just don’t distribute it.

wizzwizz41y ago

> The fact that there are terms that you are required to agree and adhere to, OR live without the goods, that is not.

kube-system1y ago

Not technically. GPLs requirements kick in the moment you make a copy for you own use, it's just that there aren't any requirements that apply under those conditions.

But they'd have to take effect right away, otherwise you'd be illegally copying copyrighted software :). It is the GPL license that grants personal use without restriction.

globular-toast1y ago

You didn't make that copy, the person you got it from did.

I don't need to be granted permission to run a program on my own computer.

1 more reply

Brian_K_WhiteOP1y ago

Those are the terms, correct. Using the code in pretty much any way you want without redistributing is adhering to those terms.

Why do you try say that means there are no terms?

The terms are ridiculously generous. But there are terms and those are they.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse