Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Dealing with blind hatred for the GPL

[Andrés Muñiz Piniella]

El 27 de febrero de 2016 17:27:51 GMT+00:00, Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net> 
escribió:
>On 02/27/2016 04:44 AM, Fabio Pesari wrote:
>> Many people (especially in the open source community) hate the GPL
>more
>> than they hate proprietary software, especially the GPLv3. I never
>found
>> an approach that works with those people.
>> 
>> Mention "freedom" and they'll say the GPL is "restrictive" and
>"viral".
>> 
>> Mention practical advantages and they'll say "corporations don't
>touch
>> anything GPL".
>> 
>> Mention the dangers of proprietary software and they'll say it
>doesn't
>> matter if the program in question is practically better.
>> 
>> Mention existing famous GPL projects and they'll argue that some of
>them
>> didn't switch to GPLv3 (like Linux and Blender).
>> 
>> Actually, mentioning the GPL at all will get you covered with insults
>> and accusations of zealotry.
>> 
>> Showing them articles from GNU.org doesn't work, and will only result
>in
>> ad hominem attacks against their author, Richard Stallman.
>> 
>> This reminds me of Two Minutes Hate from 1984.
>> 
>> How to reason with those people? They tend to gang up and it's very
>hard
>> to get your point across when everybody is agreeing with one another
>on
>> how stupid and brainwashed you are!
>> 
>
>It's pretty simple: if they think proprietary licenses are okay, then
>it's hypocritical to say the GPL is bad. In no sense at all does GPL
>have more restrictions than proprietary. So, you can simply say "this
>GPL software, you would be okay with it just being proprietary, right?
>You don't think that's bad? Well, GPL is just the copyright holder
>choosing to give the General Public extra permissions. You could argue
>that you think they should go to a permissive license, but if you think
>proprietary is okay, you have to accept that GPL is okay too."
>
>I've never had a conversation with anyone in which they had any retort
>or reply to this at all. Either the conversation becomes productive
>because they accept this (maybe they start talking about how they do
>prefer permissive licenses, but they agree that people have full right
>to use GPL), or they just disappear.
>

I don't understand this argument.

Can't the same be said about 'push over licences'? (I am liking that term 
better than 'permissive licence').

Also I think people use the revised or new bsd version thanks to fsf's input. 
something about an advertising clause?

CUPS seems to be another example of corporate suported gpl licence.
https://www.cups.org/documentation.php/doc-2.1/license.html

I only heard one person saying push over licences was better and that was the 
host of FLOSS weekly podcast. 

could work to talk about apache, at least it seems to protect users against 
patents.

**please cross check**

I like the argument of cut your losses and just talk to other people.

Definately politeness is best, and not go down the trolling route.




-- 
RichmondMakerlabs.uk
Ham United Group