RMS does not want to allow his enemies to use the tools he creates.
Well, no; he wants them to use it as much as they like, as long as they give back to the commons on which they built their foundations. There's nothing at all wrong with asking that. RMS would likely be insulted at the idea that he would forbid essential freedoms to *anyone*, including the companies he hates. There's an undercurrent in some patches of this discussion, if I may, that suggests that openness is orthogonal to commercial success; the idea being that GPL is "anti-business" and weaker licenses are "pro-business". I'll just throw in "citation needed" with the reminder that correlation does not imply causation. Users (more like "Used") buy Windows all the time even though everyone knows it can be had for free. Music lovers continue to pay for music even though it's common knowledge that it can be had with less malware on torrent sites, or simply cribbed from friends. Same for books, same for everything. Artificial scarcity creates artificial demand, but a natural abundance does not diminish natural demand. And if you want to sell open code, it had better be GPL, or your competitors will steal all your best ideas and leave you with an inferior product. With GPL, you *invite* your competitors to improve with you, while you both crib one another's work and get better and more usefully distinct over time. On 06/01/15 01:28, Jesse B. Crawford wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2015-01-05 12:29, odinn wrote:
This led me to ask if maybe there was just a way to release it into domain (public domain) without the whole licensing system and multitude of restrictions and competing licensing restrictions (including Unlicense) coming into play, depending on the project / projects being considered. (Again I think we are twirling in circles here)
This isn't unheard of, the main example would be SQLite which is completely public domain to great success. Although it depends on jurisdiction, they explain this licensing arrangement as "Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means," which sounds about as free as it can get to me.
I had a discussion with RMS about this not that long ago. In fact, the discussion began with the BSD project, which he seems to view primarily as an attempt to undermine the work of the FSF (an opinion that he expresses in some of his public talks as well). Anyway, I think it is apparent from talking to RMS that he feels that it is a goal of GPL to prevent "user-subjugating" software vendors ever obtaining any commercial advantage from GPL-licensed code. The theory of it is a bit like not selling ammunition to KKK members or something, RMS does not want to allow his enemies to use the tools he creates.
Of course I don't agree with him in this regard, but that's because I don't feel that closed-source software is intrinsically evil. From RMS's perspective, that closed-source software is fundamentally a violation of the rights of the user, it makes a great deal of sense.
I think that even FSF advocates increasingly don't align fully with RMS on this issue, but his ideas have certainly influenced the GPL.
jc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUqzotAAoJEBPrCUVAhb3Bn+kH+gLE/UOT4KPtf41ZKDr8L4UC wl6F2GD6Pph7IFFzctpG4L5X84onFX45785Q3l56fmheIrt/FrBQJRmIkaLj3l0P K7nRtHo0pAxrixTPc9CZ/6wnrVg0jHhayqnnXMKJjL6JqX/AUj9eE3qmG9X5EhmW bHpmsl6tmqAMWGWUktEfRdjBpaAMnTCiOIzrSn3SXpILaPU1plK3XHP/pxlHdhnc ULVZ2GbCNPwCU7LgZOHeCZyaC6yFez2VwsxtFO04vLPh9KCoe7cPO+6G/sO5dLrq Mu06kiSUla08eLLTa6soR3meMGGfbQAQq/IkRCKdzLnWz4bH4n6r+t7AsX26ItQ= =ytXp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----