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

[Aaron Wolf]

On 02/27/2016 10:48 AM, Andrés Muñiz Piniella wrote:
> 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').
> 

The argument is *not* a pro-GPL argument, it's a flat-out rejection of
the "GPL is bad" argument when coming from those who make/use/approve-of
proprietary stuff.

This argument I presented is for the *specific* case of those anti-GPL
people who complain about it blocking proprietary stuff. It's *not* an
argument for GPL over BSD or an argument for those who reject both
proprietary and copyleft licenses.

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>