https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/2014/

Essentially they recommend free (as in freedom) alternatives to popular, non-free sludge to be given during the holiday season (and any other time). Debate or discussion about the list or free software or free computing in general (libre, not gratis) is welcomed.

Meanwhile, here are some specific reasons not to use Windows, and one really good one to not use Windows 10. Debate or discussion about non-free software is welcome too, but please include the ethics in the discussions; don't just say "X is better because it Just Works(tm)," etc..

BTW, if you join the FSF they will send you a neat little membership card with a USB flash memory containing a fully free (libre) GNU+Linux distribution (rewritable, of course). I forget the details so check out their Web site if you're interested... I think it requires a minimum donation, but it's not a huge one. It's nothing special, but honestly it looks pretty cool in the photographs. I happened to join a few weeks ago, for ethical and political reasons, as well as the neat membership card (which I am anxiously awaiting).

Sounds like "join us, we have cookies".

Freedom is good but the FSF and their GPL do not actually promote real freedom. In fact, the GPL is quite restrictive in what you are permitted to do, so there is no true, real freedom to use GPL'ed software in whatever way that feels right according to ones own vision/truth of things (just a reminder here that I do not believe in absolute truths and I claim that any "truth" is entirely subjective and even that is of course not an absolute truth ).

Also, the general attitude of the FSF seems to be quite "anti-proprietary" which seems like a logical consequence, considering how they think of themselves as being "pro-freedom".

Freedom alone is not enough though and besides, as already said, the GPL does not really promote total freedom.
When it comes to ethics (they claim to be ethical programmers), it is my opinion that one of the most important matters there, next to freedom, is peace. But their "anti" attitude and their competitive way of thinking (competing "against" proprietary software as evident here ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html ) where they speak about the importance of giving them an "advantage" over proprietary software by considering to put more libraries under the GPL instead of the LGPL) does not promote peace either.

I do not think it is possible to liberate the people from the shackles of capitalism/proprietary anything/software by restricting freedom and by competing like that. Competition over nothing (arbitray and artificial concepts of value (like financial wealth for example)) is what created the mess the world is in in the first place. Sticking to a competitive attitude is not pro-peace and not pro-freedom.

It is in fact vaguely reminiscent of the behaviour of some "religious" organizations who claim to be unconditionally loving/x-ing Whatever-ians but then exclude everyone from that "unconditional" x-ing who is not "one of them" and thus encourages separation and competition instead of promoting inclusion and cooperation.

So there seems to be no real freedom and there seems to be no real peace in their ideology. The "free" in Free Software Foundation therefore appears to be a bit hypocritical as the separate themselves and lock you into the GPL if you base anything on their stuff.

So well, I do not want it to sound like I do not like the FSF at all. The basic idea is really going in the right direction but it is not going far enough for my own understanding of freedom and peace and for what I believe would benefit mankind more in the long run (inclusion and cooperation, freedom and peace).

Well... I find their claims of ethical behavior questionable/incomplete as elaborated above, which is why I will not join just yet but I certainly do like free software.

If only they would use a sane license...

Indeed. People assume its all about unicorns and rainbows. It is not. It's about freedom to modify the software, and being able to use those modifications up or downstream. There's a reason its called "Copyleft". It is not about "Lets do whatever the fuck we want with this". If you want that, go with something like a paired down BSD, MIT, or Zlib license or even a straight up wtfpl.

It is a sane license. You just don't happen to agree with what it is trying to do.

If people assume it is all "about unicorns and rainbows" then that is because of how they portray themselves towards the world by claiming to be the "ethical programmer good guys" while everyone else (especially programmers who survive on selling their precious lifetime developing proprietary software to sustain themselves) is basically evil and should go die in a fire.

Yes, they do not actually say that but it is not hard to get that impression when people see how they campaign against proprietary software (I am not saying that they do not have a point with some proprietary stuff being evil, like all the spyware stuff for example) and how they paint a picture of their shiny, magical, clean free software as the only reasonable option when it comes to using computers.

Their license does not agree with what they claim to be their prime ideology ("free as in freedom"). By what definition of sane is that mismatch of concepts between ideology and license, well... sane? One might say it fits their definition of freedom and serves their purpose, so may be called sane within their worldview, within their truth and fits their goals but there it is again, the exclusion/separation problem, which by definition does not seem to agree with the concept of real freedom.

So yes, I do like the way the GPL grants and ensures certain aspects of freedom(which are good) while at the same time limiting other aspects of freedom. Those limits are what earns my dislike for it.

I use a lot of software which is released under the GPL and I am very happy this software exists but I will avoid using any libraries/licenses which put limits on certain aspects of freedom like the GPL does.

Like I said, their basic approach to freedom seems ok but it is incomplete and in parts it is anti-freedom.

P.S.: I do not like the implication of "peace, inclusion, cooperation and freedom" being associated with "rainbows and unicorns". Unicorns are creatures of fiction and rainbows, even as observable realities, are commonly associated with fantasy and unrealistic daydreaming. Peace, freedom, inclusion and cooperation however, as being working and not purely fictional concepts, hold the potential of making the world a better place for everyone to live in and must not be lightly brushed off or implied to be as invalid as "rainbows and unicorns". Just because we live in a fucked up world, does not mean we have to accept it as the only possible reality.

update/editAs I read more about GNU/Linux and the FSF, the GPL, historical documents about its development, I get the feeling my perception/understanding of them is incomplete as well which currently does leave me in a state where I can not even say whether I truely like it or not. Perhaps a bit of both, which is odd.

I guess it's just down to you wanting complete freedom to do whatever you want with code, and people who like the GPL who would prefer the code stays open, no matter what.

You can also donate to the EFF.

Or do something important like feed a starving child or family.....

I've already posted a damn good reason not to use Windows 10, their file level DRM which is integrated into the file open and save dialogs so Windows controls what files all programs can access and save. It's the anti-whistleblower DRM.

And on a practical level, if you're working at a company, you better pray to God their sysadmin knows how to set-up Microsoft's newest security system because if you're in the real world 99% of sysadmins don't know how to setup security permissions to save their lives. Which means you won't be able to download a driver... you won't be able to copy a driver over the network... and when you plug a flash drive or portable hard drive? Too bad! The sysadmin didn't think that was useful enough to warrant the security risk! All you have to do now is submit a support ticket to an already over-worked IT department to plug in your freaking USB key... they'll get back to you within a week.

But as for:

That's stupid as hell. The preview version of Windows 10 has that license because it's a damned beta test so they can learn, track, and fix bugs by seeing a clear picture of everything you did. Any of our beta database products would be the same way so we'd have an idea of what the moron client did to break our product. It even says when you download Windows 10 not to use it for anything important, or sensitive!

Basically.

Bamccaig: What's your member number? Mine is 10922

I believe in free(dom) and free(beer) software but I think the GPL is a bit insane. The LGPL is a little more logical to me, and useful, but the GPL turns me off so much. I don't want to use GPL'ed software in any of my projects dare it infect the rest of my code.

Yeah, thank God Python isn't GPL. They want you to package it with your stuff which makes it insanely useful.

GPL also falls apart in one area of modern times because it doesn't qualify or understand "software as a service." It's not mentioned at all.

For one example I ran into: So there's this GPL game, Space Station 13. And everyone hosts their own version of the source code to run the their server. Well, one guy hosts but doesn't distribute the code. He's not giving back to the community, after making a successful server of the 99% of code he didn't write. But here's the problem: by design, the game server solely runs on one computer, and dumb clients connect to it. Is he violating GPL?

There's a modified GPL that specifically includes SaaS, but I don't recall the exact name. (Probably AGPL?)

So if I'm quite clever and system("gcc main.cpp -o main"); in my project, then the whole thing needs to be open source?

What?! Lilypond is GPL?!

... whell fahk.

Other than that I don't see very many "pure" GPL projects of much consequence. I would much rather have Photoshop/Illustrator over Gimp/Inkscape any day. I would even go so far to say the reason Gimp/Inkscape is still far behind is because it's GPL. If it wasn't, I could see other companies adopting the software and contributing to their development. I think non-copyleft projects might eventually supersede GPL.

My position would be ardently anti-GPL. I love the concept, but we're not there yet. A truly "free" software would allow its programmers to benefit in their own way. The programmer might wish to use it to earn a sustainable living and/or provide for her family. What if this person was in a 3rd world country and was able build software to lift their community out of poverty? Not with GPL.

That's an interesting aside. GCC has a run-time library exception to GPL so the products it compiles don't need to be GPL, but GCC itself is covered under GPL. But does using GCC from another program invoke GPL? If so, then if you even had Python (which is open) and a third-party library that translated to C, and then compiled that C at run-time with GCC? Does that mean you have to use GPL?

What have these free software foundation lunatics done! We can't tell if we're infringing or not.

I have some sw under the actual GPL. my minecraft tools. but only the enduser code, the libraries will likely all be under LGPL or Zlib. LuaGlue is Zlib. It's so cool I want everyone to use it even commercial products. .

GPL is astoundingly simple. Don't use the code together with proprietary code and you're fine. Most of my own stuff is GPL - I don't care about people making money off my work - but I want to be able to know about features and bug fixes someone makes, and I want to apply those myself without having to ask permission. With proprietary or something like BSD or zlib license that would not be guaranteed.
And I'm very much against the idea of proprietary code in general. So as far as I'm concerned GPL is close to perfect.

So don't use it with anything in the real-world? And what constitutes use? If I use a GPL media player in a non-GPL operating system, does that explode the license? What if I use a non-GPL mouse to click on it in Linux? Or view it in a non-GPL monitor, to stream video over from non-GPL router, over my non-GPL internet service?

Sure, I went a little exaggerated with my examples. But when it comes to some software, there are clear cases between "output" and "usage." A GPL OpenOffice Calc has an interface, but it outputs excel files. Anything that touches the interface would be GPL, and the files are safe for non-GPL work use. But other software isn't as clear! What about a commandline tool? If I use cat, anywhere in my program, I'm I required to open source my entire program unless I only use the results of cat?

Clearly, I'm showing my ignorance of the subject. But my point is that if I don't understand it after all these years, there are tons of others who don't. 90% of the time, all you hear is the quip "Use GPL for everything." but never a clear, cogent breakdown of what that's going to constitute. Hence, the SaaS loophole controversy that I mentioned before.

And then you get these gigantic, unwieldly legalize "license compatibility charts"

{"name":"350px-Quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.svg.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/1\/e175f5851a1b2c825095ec059ef4d204.png","w":350,"h":404,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/1\/e175f5851a1b2c825095ec059ef4d204"}

{"name":"gpl_compatibility.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/c\/3cd113dd53f9fe34d96ed1619d2e829f.png","w":881,"h":811,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/c\/3cd113dd53f9fe34d96ed1619d2e829f"}

And every damn one is filled with exceptions--even between other GPL licenses! Basically, the comment "GPL is simple" is actually deceptive. Because if you ever need to interface with something that isn't the exact version of GPL your using, then it becomes just as complex or more complex than any traditional license.

Good question! I'm not sure. Their Web sites are undergoing maintenance that is apparently due to migrating to a new system. I think somebody goofed. It might be 84504 according to a URL in an initial E-mail, but that's just guessing that the URL corresponds to member numbers. I haven't gotten my membership card yet or anything in the mail.

The FSF opposes software as a service because you can't trust it. Even if it appears to be running free software, there's no way to know what it is really doing. You therefore should not trust your data to it. In general, SaaS is very convenient, but that comes at the expense of your own freedoms, as well as privacy and usually security.

What are you even talking about? Your use of "one computer" sounds like proprietary EULA bullshit. Whether or not he's violating the GPL would depend on whether he's making changes to the source code and refusing to share them. Otherwise, I see no conflicts with his use of the software.

Chris, you're starting to sound like an extremist Feminist. Please calm down. What most of you seem to be missing is that the FSF stands for total software freedom. In particular, there are 4 core freedoms that Richard Stallman identified and that the GPL serves to preserve and protect: use, distribute, modify, and modify + distribute. The key to the GPL is that the software is guaranteed to preserve these freedoms even after somebody else makes a change to it or redistributes it. Whereas the more permissive licenses that some of you regard as being more "free" allow somebody to make an amazing modification and not only refuse to share the modified version in source or binary form, but to even release the modified version under new terms that restrict your freedoms any way they see fit! Where is your freedom now? You don't have any.

Imagine this: somebody develops a brilliant little piece of free software and distributes it under a permissive license. It's great. Everybody starts using it. Free software operating systems are developed around it as a little piece of core technology. Some third party comes along and makes an improvement to it. It's much better so everybody adopts that and begins to base all of the distributions on that. Time passes. The original source by the original author is long gone. Said third party now decides to trigger a trap it had set years ago. They revoke the permissive license terms and revoke all of your rights. You can use the software, but you can't modify it, you can't redistribute it without permission (i.e., paying a fee), and you don't get to see the source code.

Do they have the right to do that? Depends on the permissive license you're using. Generally I'd say "probably". They may not be able to restrict the original software, but everything that they wrote and own they technically control. Unless the license was worded carefully they may well be able to change the terms of use of their software modifications, or maybe even the entire bundle from them. Good luck trying to sort out what was the original author's work. Good luck trying to update it to modern times with all of that bit rot.

The GPL and related licenses exist to protect user freedoms. That is what matters to the FSF most. The user. The developer doesn't need protection from his own software. Of course, the GPL license is carefully worded to protect the developer from the user as well. In Richard Stallman's world there are not distinct groups of "developers" and "users". There are only users. Everybody is a user. Users are the ones that make modifications and redistribute them. We are the users. When he was at MIT that is how it worked. Somebody wrote a piece of software, somebody else made a change to it, and everybody shared it with each other and all were merry! If I have my stories straight, Richard Stallman used to modify the printers in the labs at MIT to report back to users when their print jobs were completed. A function that the original printers didn't support. They hacked it in. And they were allowed to do so because at the time the software industry was not as it is today. And it's that community sharing and everybody benefiting that he is fighting for.

Compare that to what we have now. Microsoft or Apple or Adobe or Sun write some software behind closed doors with the greedy objective of making money. They don't care about writing good software. They care about exploiting you and I, the users, for as much profit as possible. We are at their mercy. Their software contains misfeatures and malicious features to harm us, spy on us, and generally depend entirely on them for all of our computing needs. Despite you possibly having the skills and experience to fix a problem in the software that you're using, it is damn hard to do it without source code, and even if you had the source code you aren't legally allowed to. There is no community here. There is only greed and selfishness.

There is absolutely no reason that a person cannot make a living developing free software. Obviously it won't work with the narrow-minded business model of proprietary vendors. Their business model is about fucking the user over. Is that what kind of developer you are? Then why in the fuck would the Free Software Foundation care about you?

As for whether or not something like system("gcc ..."); violates the GPL the exact legal definition may be hard to come by so see a lawyer. That's no different than you'd have to do if you were using proprietary software, or even one of those so called permissive licenses. That said, from what I have read, the general position of the FSF and Richard Stallman would be:

• Does your software depend specifically on GPL code to perform its major function (e.g., gcc)?

• Can the software perform it's main duties without the GPL code?

• Can the software use non-GPL code in its place (e.g., a different C compiler)?

In general, if the software cannot function without invoking GPL code in some way then the FSF position is that your software must also be GPL'd. That is because for all intents and purposes, you're trying to get around the license terms with a dishonest loophole. Technicalities aside, the GPL software is still part of your software.

However, if your software functions mainly without the invocation of the GPL code, or if non-GPL code can be used in place of the GPL code, then the FSF might agree that your code does not have to be GPL'd. If you have any doubts, they would be more than happy to give you their opinion on the matter. Contact them. It is my understanding that they have legal consultants for just such an occasion. Also, if I'm not getting my wires crossed, if you believe that your GPL'd project has been used against the terms of the GPL then the FSF and its legal team will assist you in going after them free of charge. In general, not for royalties or the like as the propretiary equivalent would. They would instead fight to make the violator GPL their own software or otherwise come to an agreement that is considered fair.

I pretty much GPL all of the code that I own and explicitly license. That is because I believe in software freedoms, and want my software to remain free for everyone. If somebody wants to use my software in a proprietary product they could always contact me for explicit permission and I'd consider it then. I'd really rather they GPL'd their code too and found some business model to work with the GPL instead of against it.

Everybody that opposes the GPL is insane. Linus Torvalds doesn't really care about software freedom. The Linux kernel even has non-free binary blobs in it now. What if Linux disappeared tomorrow? What would you run your software on? Proprietary garbage that spies on you.

Oh man, do you want an idea of how serious it is? See here.

You didn't really bother to read what I wrote then. GPL SS13 is a game that runs on top of BYOND. The BYOND game system solves the "networking issue" by only having one server do everything for a running game instance. It takes everyone's inputs, it sends all graphics, and dumb terminals connect to it and forward their keystrokes to it. Anyone can host a server.

The obvious ambiguity here is that when one guy forks GPL code, modifies it, and then refuses to publish his changes... is he violating GPL since he's not distributing the game to begin with? The game is effectively SaaS. Nobody has access to the binaries, so nobody is entitled to the source code for those binaries. He can run one of the most popular servers off 99% of other people's GPL labor to set himself ahead of the pack, start a monopoly for server popularity which draws in more coders under his server, which makes it even more ahead of the pack. And it's exactly what happened until the kid got busted for the unrelated charge of Paypal fraud.

That's not a very good way to get me to listen.

I'm very likely to take Linus Torvald's opinion over yours.

Exactly. FSF stands for FSF's ideas of freedom. Not mine, no, they don't want me to come up with my own ideas of what's okay. They want everything open, and they want to force people who don't think that way to have to use GPL when they touch other products using GPL. Why do you think so many people are moving away from GPL? Because forcing a license is a form of aggression. You are taking away my freedom to control how my software is used under the assumption that I'm going to abuse that freedom against my users. And that's insanity.

Advocate open software. That's great! Convince people to open their products. But forcing people to open their products is only going to get people to refuse to interface with GPL products in the first place.

You seem to think I'm 100% against you, GPL, and the FSF. I'm not, not even remotely. But that doesn't mean I cannot have criticisms.

He isn't distributing it, so he is not violating the GPLv2 license. This is why the GPLv3 was created, so modifications on software NOT distributed directly also infringes. It's meant to protect against big service providers providing their modified software preinstalled, or I think against services like Tivo who modify software but lock it down on their devices through things like the DMCA? Might not be the same clause.

There's one solution, DON'T use GPL code in your programs. No one is forcing you to use it. It's incorrect to say the GPL infects.

I don't think actual people are moving away from it. But business with business interest are not using it for the majority of cases, though some do.

I pretty much MIT(license) all of the code that I own and explicitly license (though, all my code was already available openly but unlicensed before). That is because I believe in freedom.

Prove it.

Isn't that the same argument for or against .NET and Microsoft's proprietary software then?

People hate being de-facto locked into Microsoft. But being de-facto locked into GPL, while arguably better because the API is open and the intentions are better, isn't devoid of problems.

Am I arguing GPL and everyone using it should change? Hardly. That'd be aggression on my part to force people to bend to my whim (as if I could). But FSF essentially saying everyone should use GPL is the same type of aggression, even if the intentions are noble.

So let me clarify to show we're probably much closer than further apart in opinions: Do I think the world should move much much much further toward open source software? Yes, yes, yes, absolutely. Do I think everything should magically be GPL? No.

Not really? I'm talking about you using GPLed code in your own non GPL projects. If you aren't a fan of the GPL in your own projects, why are you using a library or source files that are licensed GPL?

The GPL does not say anything about "only if you distribute the code". If you modify it you are required to share that modification, even if you only modify it privately for personal use. Of course, if nobody knows that you did it then nobody is going to come knocking for your changes, but if anybody does come knocking you are required to make them available. Assuming this is an actual example you could potentially ask the FSF to get involved and look into it and they might be able to coerce this person to share their changes.

Note however that the GPL doesn't say that you have to make the source code available gratis. As far as I know, Richard Stallman is OK with you charging money for the source code. Of course, you may only sell it once because once somebody has it they can distribute it free (gratis) henceforth (and they must distribute it libre).

Freedom (libre) is important to the FSF. It has nothing to do with programmers being enslaved to work for free (gratis).

The only freedom they're taking away from you is the freedom to abuse your users. The humanity! Somebody contact the UN! They don't force anybody to do anything. They merely drafted a license that preserves software freedoms, and fight to make people aware of the issues and how to protect themselves from non-free software. People that choose to license their software using the GPL are themselves choosing to restrict your freedom to abuse your users.

It's no different than any proprietary license in that regard, and oddly people that oppose the GPL generally have no problem using proprietary software. That leads me to believe that these people aren't worth listening to.

"Open source" is a vague term intended to muddy the waters. It doesn't really have any practical meaning. Open source code can still be proprietary and limited by proprietary licensing terms. For example, to the best of my knowledge the QNX operating system comes with source code. It is still entirely proprietary. You need to purchase an expensive license to acquire it legally. Once you have that you are able to make changes to the system source code as needed for your purpose.

Nobody is restricting your freedom to criticize. You should do a little research first so that you know what you're actually criticizing. Richard Stallman is not some clueless hippy. He's a very smart man with open eyes and strong ethics. Most people that oppose the GPL don't really understand what it's for. Nobody that advocates for the GPL cares if the GPL turns you away from their software. Good. If you don't respect my freedoms with your derivative software then I don't want you using my software to build it (unless you pay me handsomely for the privilege; I'd probably just turn around and do my best to use the funding to match your own modifications to keep mine at par with yours).

Note that a very large part of Linux distributions is GNU. Without GNU there would be no completely free Linux operating systems, and for that matter probably no complete Linux operating systems, period. GNU made Linux possible, and continues to do so. And Richard Stallman made GNU. You should show respect where it is due and appreciate everything that Richard Stallman, GNU, and the GPL has done for us.

Append:

As for the GPL turning people away, you'll note that a majority of devices that you buy these days are full of GPL code, and the documentation generally has the legal disclaimer in the back explaining this. The GPL doesn't scare away commercial interests. It is still much more affordable for them to use the GPL software than to roll their own. What it does do is help to limit their abilities to take away your freedoms.

And the reason that the GPLv3 isn't compatible with other revisions of the license is because the GPLv3 was created in direct response to TiVo using the Linux kernel and perhaps other GPLv2 software and then using a loophole in the wording to avoid having to share their changes back. The GPLv3 patches the hole that TiVo got around.

I've done some reading/research myself on the topic over the past evenings.

Mr. McCaig, please do not write Linux when really you mean to write GNU+Linux for the scope of discussion in this thread because it does not help your request of others to do some research first before criticizing if you fail to do so yourself and by using the terms loosely like you do, you do not help to dispel the confusion around GNU, GPL and Linux but you are more likely to add to it.

Linux is not an operating system. It is a kernel, not more, not less. GNU is not an operating system either (yet, since it still lacks a stable kernel). The GNU Hurd (their kernel) has been in development since around 1990 and it does not look like it is going to be sufficiently bug free or feature complete for everyday use anytime soon. According to wikipedia even rms himself did not think optimistic about GNU Hurd in 2010 and claimed it was not crucial to finish it because a free kernel (Linux) already exists.

You claim that without GNU there would be no Linux. That is wrong. Linux was originally developed on MINIX and GNU applications later came in to replace MINIX components. So whereas it is true that Linux distributions owe much of their success to the availability of GNU software, the claim that without GNU there would be no Linux remains wrong.

And the opposite is true as well, GNU software also owes much of their popularity, availability and distribution to the Linux kernel and Linux distributions because without the Linux kernel, there would not be any feasible way to even run GNU software.

So there is a tight coupling going on between GNU and Linux, they both benefit from each other and it is my wish for you to stop painting a black and white picture of the situation where you seem to demonize one side and praise another. We live in a colorful world where there is no clear distinction between "good" and "evil" as you seem to would like to believe there is.

The FSF is not the only player around in the field of free software. No one here says they are not important and I believe much of the criticism towards the GPL is well justified for reasons that have been pointed out/repeated enough times by now. I'll add another one: it is way too wordy (which is probably one of the main reasons it confuses people and lets them get wrong ideas about it).

Now... I could be wrong but I think the MIT license and the GPL are even compatible (would have to do a thorough check/research on that though) and I do not think that if I release anything under the MIT license or use anything 3rd party under that license that there could be any occurrence of future freedom-restriction towards my code or the code that I re-use.

There are many OS's that have GNU ports, even MESSDOS, without which Allegro would probably have languished on the horrible Borland stuff.

I see I have not been thorough in my research. The statement that Linux would not exist without GNU remains wrong.

As I said earlier, my overview of the whole mess is incomplete as well. The history is probably only well known by those who are old enough to have been part of the whole development dating back all the way to the invention of programmable looms. But they probably have more important things to do to stick their heads in here to give us greenhorns an accurate overview of how things came to be.

I used to be an FSF member but cancelled a few years ago. I still have the stuff they sent me. The fact is, free software is a good thing, but their attitude is hilarious and I don't take them seriously anymore. There are far more important things than source code but they believe code is God. I'm not against the GPL but I would never use it for anything I released or use any *GPL code in any of my software. Some GPL software is good (Linux itself, GCC, etc) but most of it (100% of end-user software) is awful.

As for ethics, free software is no more ethical than demanding the KFC recipe (free recipes!) It's a joke.

It's easier to understand in the light of Stallman having freely exchanged source with others for years, only to have it stopped by companies wanting to increase the bottom line.

Exactly. If you release code as MIT/BSD/zlib anyone can just take it and make it not free (you allow them to). All GPL does is try to protect the free-ness of (derivatives of) the code.

"Me and the other ladies in town used to exchange our fried chicken recipes all the time. Why that's how I learned about adding a little bit of pepper to mine! Then KFC came along with THEIR fried chicken. The spices were just right and the meat was oh so tender. We asked the Colonel for the recipe but he said NO. I was so upset that I started the Free Recipe Foundation. Our chicken still ain't as good as KFC but one day all the worlds recipes will be free (libre) for everyone to enjoy just like God intended."

Yup. That's exactly why I use a similar license.

I'm also very much against the idea of patents (recipes might fall under that), for what it's worth. That is, the original purpose was fine, protecting inventions of inventors. But today all they do is hamper innovation and make competition against big companies impossible.

Not having as many users != competition impossible.

It seems like every time a good idea comes along, somebody eventually figures out how to game it to their own advantage through legal shenanigans.

I'm against most patents. To me that's completely different than free software. The difference is, with patents you are forbidden by law to make your own version of something somebody has made. With closed source software, you're still allowed to do that if it's not patented.

Mr. Dennis, please cite where I have done so and I will correct it. I think the only time that I used Linux referring to the GNU+Linux operating system was when I referred to "a very large part of Linux distributions is GNU" (which was edited text: my original wording said "core", which was kind of nonsense when comparing the part that isn't the kernel) (but see below). It might have been misleading to have said GNU/Linux distributions since people may not realize that practically all "Linux" distributions are GNU/Linux AKA GNU+Linux distributions.

Linux is a kernel and drivers. GNU on the other hand is an entire operating system except for a functioning kernel [and drivers]. And yes, GNU Hurd is basically a research project at this point because the Linux kernel (and as I understand, also FreeBSD kernel) are free software (mostly) and already fill that niche. And I think the GNU Hurd people were overzealous with trying something different and barked up the wrong tree. That said, it is my understanding when last I looked that GNU Hurd does technically run, and so it is possible to have a complete GNU operating system running. However, Hurd is not considered production quality and obviously lacks many features and device drivers that are available with Linux.

Most GNU+Linux distributions ship Linux kernels with non-free software in them. The FSF project keeps track of truly free software distributions to prefer. I think that Debian is close, but I think that they still ship a non-free kernel (but a free kernel might be packaged up too). IIUC, you have to configure the kernel specifically to exclude non-free blobs when you build it if you're building it yourself. Thankfully, the kernel developers made that presumably easy to do.

I meant that Linux-based operating systems would not be complete as are the GNU+Linux distributions today. MINIX was a proprietary operating system until the year 2000. Running a free software kernel on a proprietary operating system is defeating the purpose since the system is still not free.

Perhaps the BSDs would have attempted to fill that niche, if anything, when they were eventually opened up, but then without GNU I'm skeptical that the BSDs would have ever been opened up (or MINIX for that matter). Additionally, had the BSDs been the operating system of choice for free software developers they probably would have abandoned Linux and used the BSD kernel(s) instead. It may have vastly reshaped the world we live in today. I was researching this recently and apparently the BSDs are developed as a centralized code base (i.e., the entire operating system in one source code repository).

That's debatable. Had it not been for Linux the GNU project would have needed a kernel developed, as would everybody else in the world. It's possible they could have used a BSD-derived kernel, or that GNU Hurd would have been raised to fruition instead (the Linux kernel basically drained all of the qualified and interested people, making them unavailable to help out with Hurd; I think that might have been due to mismanagement from GNU in the early days by keeping the kernel secret instead of releasing and inviting help). I highly doubt that not having a kernel would have indefinitely stopped GNU. The GNU software was already distributable, and it was already UNIX compatible. It could have run on a non-free UNIX (as it presumably did and does). It just wouldn't have satisfied the free software goals of Richard Stallman, the GNU project, and its brethren until a later date when a free kernel was otherwise developed.

I do not demonize Linux. Linux is for the most part amazing. The only problem is that its lead developers/overseers do not personally care about preserving its software freedoms. I think Linus Torvalds is a great man. I love it when he tells all the idiots around him that they're idiots. It's almost like a toy Dr. House in the hacker community. That said, it is problematic for me that the Linux kernel is accepting non-free binary blobs. I'd much prefer them to reverse engineer the blobs and release the code into the wild on the net separate from the Linux kernel. Or just go without support for devices whose vendors do not permit free software to power them.

The GPL is as wordy as it is because it was actually drafted with the assistance of attorneys with the intent of being upheld in a court of law just like any proprietary license is. It isn't enough to write down "you can do whatever you want, you're welcome." A court of law has to interpret that in legal terms, and it is vague enough that it can be twisted around any way somebody sees fit. It then becomes the job of a judge (perhaps a bought one) to decide the outcome in court for themselves. That is the problem with those simpler licenses. They may not hold up in court which threatens everybody's safety by possibly enabling a rich and powerful entity to try to take over the software.

"MIT license" is ambiguous since there have been many. The FSF recommends these licenses for simple programs for which you don't care about copyleft. Apparently the FSF does not recommend their use for substantial programs because they don't protect users from patent treachery. The simplicity comes at a cost. Instead for those people that don't care about copyleft they recommend the Apache 2.0 license which is still permissive, but does have clauses to protect users from patent treachery. Note that it is not compatible with GPLv2, but it is compatible with GPLv3.

Compatibility is one-directional. It just means that software licensed under a compatible license can be used or distributed under the GPL of applicable versions. It does NOT mean that GPL software can be used or distributed under the more permissive license terms.

Law is difficult. Anybody opting to use a simpler license without legal advise is putting their users at risk, and depending on the license perhaps also themselves. To be fair, if you really want to be safe you should opt to get legal advice regardless, but the FSF purports to do its best to handle that step for you.

Thank you for the extensive elaboration.

When people refer to the MIT license these days, they are in general referring to this one:
::start of license::
The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright(c) 20xx, <your name here>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
::end of license::

I marked an important part in bold letters.

I frankly do not see how anyone could ever retro-actively take away or restrict mine and my users freedom for anything that I or anyone else releases under that license. It is short, precise, easily understandable and pretty clear on the "and to permit..." part.

In other words, if you use software or parts of software originally released under that MIT license in your product, you must give your users all the same rights for that part of your software but you still have the freedom to add other parts to your software(separate from the original re-used parts under the MIT license) which you may keep for yourself and put under any license you wish but that does not ever have the power to change the license for the re-used parts upstream and not even downstream either.

That latter piece of freedom (to choose a differen license for your own parts) is the one that the GPL denies, so the claim "free as in freedom" is actually a false claim (I feel like I am repeating myself).

On a loosely related sidenote: I am not seeing (m)any job offers for paid "free software development" positions, so I find it difficult to believe it would be possible to earn a living in doing so (I personally find the whole idea that everyone in this day and age has to "earn" a living and is controlled 100% by money and decisions purely based on "cost" and that the "needs" of financial systems are being considered more important than the needs of people ridiculous (and governments/politicians are quite powerless to make any changes because they are all controlled by those systems as well) and un-ethical as hell but that's a whole different story and does not have much to do with free software. The commonly asked question "and who is going to pay for it?" is on a global scale the single most anti-life/anti-social question anyone can ever ask. The question should always be "what is needed by people and how can we achieve it?" and the goal should be for people to work less and smarter, not more and harder... I will cut myself off here, don't want to ramble on about this the whole night, just one more thing: Money is fiction, people are real.).

The GPL guarantees that the software remains free (libre) for users in every way that matters for them personally. The source must be made available, and it is permitted to modify the software, in source or binary form, and distribute exact copies or modified copies. Everyone will always be free to use, modify, and distribute copies and modified copies of the work regardless of whom derives from it, under these same terms.

The MIT license basically just says, do whatever you want, but distribute a copy of this license text with copies or modified copies the work.

You are basically arguing that:

• The GPL licenses are not really about freedom because a user cannot choose to use or distribute somebody else's work or a derived work under his own terms.

  
  

• The MIT license(s) are free because they permit anyone to do whatever they want, including revoking the freedom of users to use a distributed copy or modified copy of a work.

Note how the GPL licenses serve to preserve the freedom, and the MIT license(s) do not.

The MIT license doesn't even require you to release the source code or distribute copies or links to the original code. Neither the original nor modified source code. Merely including a copy of the MIT license text and copyright notice. Of course, if that text doesn't apply to your software as a whole, it loses meaning if you just find that text somewhere within a project.

your-program --stupid-no-longer-applicable-license
The following license does not apply to this software.

<MIT license text>

The GPL does not prevent authors from dual-licensing their works. In the event that you want to use GPL'd work without being bound by the terms of the GPL you could always contact the copyright holder for permission to use the work under different terms. Of course, a well versed author might refuse to grant such permission to you if they really understand the purpose of the GPL. At least unless you make it worth their while, which probably means paying money, which you probably can't afford and don't want to do, though if you care about the terms of the GPL you probably intend to ask of somebody else; and/or might limit your use of the work in some way that still makes it unusable by you, for example by not allowing you to modify, distribute, or derive from it.

I have no ill will towards the people with opposing ideas. I'm simply trying to explain my understanding of the open source licensing situation, and the logical fallacies that I believe are being used to slander the GPL license(s). I would encourage anybody with distaste for the GPL to study the writing and speaking of Richard Stallman himself. He addresses concerns, and also presents the ideas to new audiences regularly so he is not unaware of your own concerns. He has good reasons for creating these licenses and fighting for their adoption.

As for the digression on currency and slavery I think we are more or less on the same page there, except that I'd argue that representatives of governments are able to make changes, but the vast majority of those in government have no interest in doing so because the existing systems take good care of them and their people. That isn't universal though. Members of the Green Party of Canada show a healthy disdain for the corruption of government and positive steps to limiting the power of those in government (unfortunately, they don't have the power alone to enact these changes, and Canadians are too lazy to even pay attention so that they can even notice a problem, let alone acting to solve it). It occurs to me that if the majority of registered voters in Canada do not vote it should be taken as "none of the above" and the election should be declared incomplete and the function of government should be suspended until a fair election with a majority of votes for a particular representative (with non-voters still counting towards a virtual candidate of "none of the above" ad. infinitum).

I got 4 letters in the mail today. Guess which ones I was happier to receive.

{"name":"609063","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/c\/5c06fd7f606df015967c2f247eef640c.jpg","w":3456,"h":3456,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/c\/5c06fd7f606df015967c2f247eef640c"}

{"name":"609064","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/f\/cf7363d1c953e1301d828fc9385237f7.jpg","w":3456,"h":3456,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/f\/cf7363d1c953e1301d828fc9385237f7"}

It's easy, the ones that were written by an actual sender, I guess

That is wrong on two levels. Wrong because you are claiming I say things which I do not say. Wrong because of false facts about the MIT license and about the GPL license.

what I am actually saying is:
I am saying the levels of freedom granted by the GPL are incomplete(reread the thread from the start if you don't believe this to be true) and since the meaning of "freedom" should not be watered down(restricted) like that(because restrictions of any type basically go against the very definition of freedom), "free as in freedom" is a false claim. It may sound nice on the surface but if you look closely it does not hold up to match the definition of freedom.

The MIT license does not include the right to revoke any already given freedom of users to use anything. It even explicitly and impossible-to-misunderstand says "and to permit... to do so".

The MIT license does not at all say anywhere to "do whatever the fuck you want"(like you seem to think it does when it does not). It is in fact pretty clear about which freedoms are granted and does not allow anyone to take those freedoms away (that's where you seem to misunderstand the MIT license as you keep claiming that anyone could basically at any moment revoke any rights previously granted by stuff under MIT license which is, again, not true: There is no possibility for revoking rights anywhere in it.).

I have a feeling our positions on this matter are set in stone for now and the exchange of thoughts is running in circles which is why I no longer find it desirable to continue on this topic. I learned a lot about the GPL and the FSF in the process.

Neither do I have an "ill will" nor do I think anyone else here who criticizes the GPL/FSF does (seriously, where do you get those ideas?). Likewise, I am trying to explain my understanding of the open source licensing situation and the logical fallacies that I believe are being used to blindly worship the GPL, the FSF, rms and slander everyone else who does not agree with it/him and spread false claims and instill fear about other licenses such as the MIT license.

I will happily continue to use GNU based software in my daily use of computers and I am, like I said before, very thankful for all the tools they provide and for the existence of open/free software in general. I just will not use GPL'ed components in my software or use the GPL for my software because I like my freedom and I do not want to impose unreasonable restrictions towards the freedom of others who might be interested in (re)using my software.

My opinion may even change some day, maybe with a new revision of the GPL, one which respects ALL levels of freedom and does not force certain rules upon any new software which re-uses any existing GPL'ed components. Maybe I still do not fully understand the GPL though... that's still a possibility.

Dennis: You misunderstood the MIT license:

"Permission is hereby granted... to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to... sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so..."

It grants you, the receiver of software with the license, the right to permit others the same rights. It's the right to sub-license basically, which for classic licenses often is not the case and so they felt they had to explicitly mention it. In no way does this imply that you have to or even should do so. It is perfectly fine to put a more restrictive license on and then sue whoever makes modifications to the original software

Nah, I think you misunderstood it because you stopped reading too early when it was about to come to another important fraction of the text which explicitly mentions something which, if done so as the license demands, will grant all the same rights and permissions upstream (what it does not demand though is that you grant and permit the same rights downstream for the parts that you add which must be separate from the re-used(under MIT license conditions) upstream parts).

I do not think so (about the retroactively putting on a more restrictive license to the re-used parts and about the sue-ing (I mean, you can try but the license is pretty clear on that being a violation of the terms), because of "and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

In other words, if one uses anything under the MIT license without granting the same permissions (due to the "subject to the following conditions..." part), they are in direct violation of the terms of the MIT license and therefore not allowed to use those pieces of software in the first place.

They can not possibly restrict use of what they were are not allowed to use by violating the original terms of usage.

update/append:
I will prepare a structured view of the important parts of the MIT license here which will make this even more clear.

full text passage:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

structured text passage:
PREFIX, ENUMERATION(of permissions/rights), CONDITIONS(under which the rights are granted)

PREFIX:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),

ENUMERATION:
to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so

CONDITIONS:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Note these two and very important statements about the conditions:
a) if you do not follow the conditions you are not granted any of the rights in the ENUMERATION thus are not allowed to use the MIT licensed piece of code at all

b) if you do adhere to the conditions (most importantly by including the copyright notice and by including the same permission notice) you are allowed to use the MIT licensed piece of code and by including the license/permission notice recursively grant your users the same rights/permissions for the re-used portion of MIT licensed code

There simply is no loophole there which would allow anyone to revoke/restrict the granted rights and permissions for the re-used pieces upstream for then they would be in violation of the conditions of the license and so are not allowed to re-use the pieces from upstream which they are trying to restrict so the attempt to do so would be simply, well: illegal.

My scenario was, you write software A, with MIT license. Someone modifies it with modification B to create a new software A+B, released with a restrictive license, for example non-commercial (or even something like GPL).

Now you incorporate the same modification B into your original project. And they sue you for copyright violation as you do not have the right to use B. (Or license violation since you can't re-release GPL code as MIT.)

And so my fear is that once I release something under MIT, and someone happens to make a bug fix or add a feature before me, I couldn't fix the bug or add the feature anymore without violating their copyright/license.

I think that fear is basically the same one which bamccaig has about it.

A bugfix or a feature falls under the grant for the right to modify. And if one does not include the permission notice as required by the conditions, one is not granted that right to modify in the first place.

So if someone makes a bugfix or adds a feature, they basically have to allow anyone(by inclusion of the unmodified copyright and permission notice) to add the same bugfix or feature upstream or they'd violate the original terms of the license.

I think the MIT license is solid in that regard of protecting your freedoms and rights. It is (as is the GPL) an OSI approved license ( http://opensource.org/licenses ) and that means it fulfills the conditions of the OSD ( http://opensource.org/osd ).

Well... of course, some paid(not to say bought) lawyers and judges might (voluntarily)interpret things differently in court but it clearly is not my fault if they fail at even the most basic elements of propositional calculus and so I would personally find their ruling in favor of an unwarranted suing process to restrict anyones open source software rights/freedoms ridiculous and I would be unable to take said lawyers and judges seriously and I would suggest or rather demand of them to switch career for something which does not require the ability to read, understand and apply logical connectives.

But the permission notice only applies to the original, not to the modifications. Yes, you are required to include the original license. But that doesn't mean that it will apply to anything but the original code.

But it kind of does as the license explicitly says the rights/grants/freedoms and conditions apply to "the software" and not just to "a specific piece of" the software.

So if you use A and combine/bugfix/modify/feature enrich it with B, you can not exempt B from the rights/grants/freedoms conditions of A by putting A+B under a more restrictive license, because A+B becomes "the software" then.

What you could do at most would be to use an unmodified A and your own B which makes use of A (further refered to as the B(A) way of re-use) and then put B under a different license and include A under the original license but in that case (putting B under a different license), you are not allowed to modify/bugfix/feature enrich A itself (because that would violate the conditions of the license of A), so the freedoms of the author of A are protected and the freedoms of the author of B are protected as well as they are not required to use the same license as A in the B(A) way of re-using the software.

The GPL on the other hand, as I understand it, requires both the A+B type of reuse and the B(A) type of reuse, to also be made available under the GPL terms thus limiting the freedom of the author of B in the B(A) re-use scenario.

Feel free to correct me if you think I got that wrong.

It wouldn't necessarily prevent you from fixing the same bug or adding the same feature, but if their license wasn't compatible with yours (e.g., theirs is some version of GPL and yours is some variation of MIT) then you wouldn't be able to copy their changes exactly. You'd have to reinvent them yourself. And if you were afraid of them coming after you you would have to take care to make sure there was no question that you didn't take it from them. That said, MIT says nothing of software patents, so presumably even if the other software is MIT licensed you might still not be able to implement their bug fix or feature if they happen to own a software patent for it (even by producing your own changes!).

You're erroneously arguing that MIT licenses are "infectious" like the GPL. MIT licenses are not, which is exactly the reason that some people prefer them. It gives users the freedom to change the terms for their own users.

Lawyers and judges don't care what you consider fair or logical. They care about the letter of the law and precedence, much of which is created by corruption and money. If you choose to disregard them then you might as well just abuse GPL'd software from day zero too and not worry about it. It would be the same thing.

Your interpretation of MIT licenses is as restrictive as GPL. You would not be able to use it for traditional commercial software because you'd be required to grant all of these rights to everyone (i.e., use, modify, distribute). That is not how MIT licenses work. MIT licenses do not enforce any such thing. The only thing they enforce is that the original user of the original work has those rights and that you include a copy of the original license and copyright notice (not that they apply to your own work or derivative work).

See here: https://tldrlegal.com/license/mit-license

By definition of the MIT licenses being compatible with the GPL licenses, that means that I can take your MIT licensed work and relicense it under the GPL. You would not be able to touch any modifications that I made without my GPL infecting your work. Conversely, your MIT licensed work will not infect my work.

Append:

And here's everything that GPL v2 and v3 does (as far as I can see, v3 just seeks to make it explicit that you're free to use the licensors' patents without worry):

https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v2
https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v3-(gpl-3)

No I am not. Clearly if you can not comprehend the fine differences in the different ways of re-use and their respective implications about what one is and is not allowed to do in each of the licenses then that is not a basis on which it is possible for me to continue this discussion with you. I do not actually think you are incapable of understanding it though, it is more like you do not want to understand it for the sake of argument and frankly I am tired of the way you keep suggesting that I am saying things which I am not saying.

And as I already said, it is impossible to take such lawyers and judges seriously.

No that is a different thing entirely. I respect very well what the GPL does to software licensed under it, which is exactly the reason I avoid it.

Only in one out of the two described different cases of software re-use.

So much for the GPL protecting and promoting that level of my freedom. Thank you for proving my point.

It isn't your (1) freedom the GPL serves. It is everyone's freedom (N). It is impossible to give everyone absolute freedom. Necessarily the freedom of one collides with the freedom of others. It is absolutely nonsense to argue that the GPL is not freedom-centric because of this.

For example, if you were absolutely free to do whatever you wanted then you could pick up a brick and beat an infant to death with it (regardless of what it would say about you to want to do it). It sounds like you are arguing that laws that prevent you from doing so are anti-freedom... When really they serve to prevent you from encroach upon the rights or freedoms of others.

The GPL exists to protect people generally from evil corporations. The MIT licenses do not accomplish this at all. A selfish, greedy entity can take MIT licensed software, make some malicious modifications to it, and release it against unsuspecting users. They have no obligation to share the code with us and they can restrict our right to reverse engineer their code by law so we have no legal way to check if they do or don't have malicious features. Albeit, these days you can just assume it, but you can't prove it so the vast majority of people remain oblivious victims.

Whereas the GPL would force the entity, by law (to the extent it can), to release their modifications and allow us all to see these malicious features. We'd be able to remove them, and also be able to hold the entity accountable. The entity would not even attempt to add those features knowing they would not be allowed to hide them from us. The GPL exists to let we the people beat selfish, greedy entities (typically corporations) at their own game. Primarily, it exists to free our computing.

What I've seen projects using MIT code do is just have something like "Parts of this software use code from A, see A_license.txt for its license". Which then has a copy of the original license. But it does not say which code exactly falls under it. And that's all the MIT license requires, retain the original license text somewhere. But mainly for the copyright notice, as you are free to license the derived software under any license you wish. (You don't have to include any source code at all either, but if you do, it all is under the new license not under MIT.)

It is your opinion that it is that and I did not say the GPL is not freedom-centric. I said the freedom it grants is incomplete because of restricting my freedom like it does. If everyone's freedom restricts my freedom then that "everyone's freedom" is by definition not "everyone's" freedom since I too am included by definition in the circle of people that constitutes "everyone".

I could(only in a sick theory though), regardless of the fact that I would not and regardless of the fact that I find it disturbing to see your mind coming up with that idea and bringing it into this for whatever odd reason.

To use your words (and to continue the twisted nature of that unrelated example): The definition of freedom does not care what you consider fair or logical or in this case, acceptable and sane by certain commonly accepted moral/ethic standards (to which I do subscribe, do not ever think I would be capable of committing an act like that but that particular attempt of yours to make a point is moot because the described act is unrelated to the topic of software licenses and fails to render the definition of freedom invalid (which is what I assume it was trying to do) or to have any logical connections/consequences for the way the MIT license or the GPL works).

Those, contrary to your other (invalid) example involving the pointless murder of another living being, seem to be valid points and work much more towards me understanding what the GPL is about at this point in time.

I do however, still think the MIT license also protects me/my software from that to happen because of all the strictly logical derivations of its exact structure/wordings and their implications on what is in theory permitted and what is not, depending on the model of re-use that is being applied, as described earlier.

I am now, actually considering GPL though, as it seems like it does more to ensure those implications can not be misunderstood within the system of law as it works in practice(despite being highly illogical and in that regard insane in my opinion). It would limit my freedom but at the same time protect parts of my freedom against those who might like to take it away from me which would be important for me to always be able to continue to use/develop my software and to permit everyone else to so as well (with certain restrictions to their and my freedom though).

I am starting to wonder whether those restrictions of my freedom (by the GPL) are actually important for any practical reasons. I may join the FSF after all... but I do not like the way that the suggestion of fear (having to fear being ripped off by some corp)... is driving me towards considering the GPL. It feels like being manipulated with fear by the FSF (or one of their members in this case) in much the same way as religious people, questionable political figures and insurance brokers use fear to manipulate people.

One question: if the GPL is that great, why is Allegro not GPL'd?

Yes but only in that version of yours and only the code that you wrote. It does not change anything about the MIT licensed code upstream, not even within your project. The MIT licensed pieces will always stay MIT licensed no matter how many different other licenses you put in for other parts.

The major difference between this fear and the fear used by religions or politicians is that this fear is based on reality, and it can be demonstrated and proven using scientifically valid techniques (for example, reverse engineer the software, or socially engineer the people). It isn't fantasy that people and corporations intentionally put malware into software to exploit or hurt people. It's factual and it's not really disputable.

Most people fear the GPL, just as you and others did when beginning this thread, and some of the Allegro developers do as well. They don't care if Allegro is used to abuse people. They want it to be free (libre) for anybody to use for any purpose, and they don't want to risk the GPL scaring people away from using Allegro. I guess they never really saw SDL coming.

Well, but still SDL is not licences under GPL proper, surely that's not the main reason one should fear scarcity of adoptions.

Back in the day, Microsoft took the open-source Kerberos Web security technology invented by MIT and added it's own "extensions", claimed they were a trade secret, then when Slashdot readers posted info from a MS website that required a non-disclosure agreement, invoked the DMCA.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-240422.html

Praise Him!
{"name":"609068","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/f\/0f487dc71105bb55a9f3b577eaf3359e.jpg","w":709,"h":980,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/f\/0f487dc71105bb55a9f3b577eaf3359e"}

As much as Microsoft has pissed me off today alone as I attempt to setup Windows Server 2012 R2 on a laptop next to me. (Wireless networking is disabled by default, thanks Ballmer!) I almost want to side entirely with Microsoft on this one.

If my understanding is correct, they weren't trying to censor mere discussion. They were trying to take down content that was only available to people who... in essence... signed a non-disclosure agreement. I really don't see any difference between that and Viacom being mad you uploaded Family Guy to YouTube.

Unless, however, the Kerberos Web security technology in question was once public domain and they arbitrarily decided to "close it" and then invoke the DMCA to squash it. That would be bad. Unless it's a new specification derived from the old public one, which becomes grey grey legal waters indeed.

The part that's stupid is that Microsoft essentially gave anybody anonymous access to the software, but then tried to claim that it was a "trade secret" because they prompted you to agree to keep it secret. There's nothing particularly secret about something you give to anybody at all without knowing who they are just because they checked a checkbox in a Web browser. They then apparently tried to prevent people from discussing the differences between the open source software and the extensions or changes that Microsoft had made.

To tip it further against them, it was another example of them taking something standard and open and trying to add proprietary extensions to take control over it. Which may have been perfectly legal, but it was and is completely unethical, greedy, and selfish. And it's also a very fine example of exactly why the GPL is needed and good.

The (old) rebuttal to Torhu's image

{"name":"BillGatusOfBorg.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/4\/f44e3cea30eea679e26931723a5941a4.gif","w":382,"h":364,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/4\/f44e3cea30eea679e26931723a5941a4"}

Heh

People have, and will continue to abuse the GPL. Theres a reason the GPLv3 was created, to close certain loopholes manufacturers or service providers were using. Also, there is an entire organization dedicated to going after GPL infringers, it is very common, many places, like india and china just don't take it seriously. They assume they can just get away with using and distributing GPL code without providing the source in some form, or a way to build it.