Definiton I am using is common sense. OSI one is overly complex for example it has point "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups".
> It seems you've created your own definitions for both "open source" and "free software" in order to exclude copyleft from both categories
Copyleft is not a requirement for open source or OSI Open Source. It is for FSF Free Software though.
I am aware of how "free software" can be misinterpreted. Thats why I havnt used it. But allow me to explain whats wrong with FSF definition. The word free implies unrestricted freedom like MIT/Public Domain which is true for users but not devs (proprietary devs to be specific). Nothing wrong with intention of this perticular definiton. But choice of the word is misleading. "republic software" may be ? Also note both are lawyers definitons.
Just curious what would you label something whose source you can view and/or modify for personal use ? Google says open source.
All this definition debate aside, last 5 posts have been about dev unfriendly restrictions of GPL/copyleft/share-alike. Free software was not mentioned at all. Only once[1] I mention open source which is to illustrate the point that proprietary does not necessarily mean you cannot view the source and cannot modify for personal use. Proprietary certainly does not come with same big restrictions as GPL. For a dev,
MIT/BSD > Proprietary with source > Proprietary >>> GPL.
> Both of these terms have definitions going back decades by now which contradict yours; in the open source case, one of the reasons for starting to using the term in the first place was to avoid possible misconceptions or misunderstandings of what "free software" referred to!
Yes both have been standardized but I doubt the actual adoption.
[1] Okay I have used it more than once. But every other usage works with either definitons.
The qualifier to note is "same" not "big restrictions".
No sane developer agreement[1] would require the modification/usage and all other associated confidential IPs to be disclosed. Or it would suffer heavy market share just like GPL. Ofcourse this does not mean such proprietary softwares does not exist but they would be abandoned once another competing product without such restrictions comes to market, just like GPL.
[1] Or even EULAs if the software is likely to be used as building block such as Photoshop/Unity etc.
[2] I am assuming here. I would like to know if such softwares exist.
I meant the EULAs on end user software. This perfectly illustrates how completely people miss the point of the GPL.
The GPL is intended to promote the freedoms of the end users of software. It is not really that concerned with developers as a special category of users. People already understand all the points you are making about developer freedom being more important that user freedom and either: (1) agree with you or, (2) disagree. If you don't like it just don't use it on your own work and use liberally licensed libraries in your own projects, don't complain on the internet about how other people choose to treat their own IP.
Also your definitions are contrary to the generally accepted and fairly clearly defined ones which will just lead to confusion for you and people you interact with. Maybe it would be easier to just use the right words rather than fighting to re-define them?
I dont know where I made you think that I misunderstand the intentions of GPL.
> The GPL is intended to promote the freedoms of the end users of software. It is not really that concerned with developers as a special category of users. People already understand all the points you are making about developer freedom being more important that user freedom and either: (1) agree with you or, (2) disagree.
You twice brought users into the discussion but its about effect of GPL on devs.
> If you don't like it just don't use it on your own work and use liberally licensed libraries in your own projects, don't complain on the internet about how other people choose to treat their own IP.
I am not complaining. I am convincing that GPL is dev-unfreindly. That is convincing devs to stay away from GPL not dictacting how they should licence their own softwares.
I am also sad GPL people have made great massively collabrated projects (where most contributers do not even realize what restrictions they are imposing, even on themselves) like OpenStreetMap canserous. I will be very happy when this ideaology dies.
> Also your definitions are contrary to the generally accepted and fairly clearly defined ones which will just lead to confusion for you and people you interact with. Maybe it would be easier to just use the right words rather than fighting to re-define them?
Okey now you are just nitpicking. There is only one place where I can be misunderstood, and I have clarified it twice.
OK so you are advocating a POV rather than discussing an issue.
Just a word of advice for your future advocacy endeavours. The GPL is about users. Devs aren't special according to its proponents. You will need to appreciate the fact that the GPL is about user freedom in order to convince them.
So whats the issue ? Whether one should pick GPL for his own software. ANSWER: NO.
Most worthwhile open source contributions are paid by commercial companies. And if given a choice they will spend their money in contributing to BSD/MIT softwares rather than GPL. By picking GPL you would be decreasing potential contributions.
We havnt even discussed the elephent in the room. How your project can turn into legal battle ground, divide the community and fill the maillist and issue tracker with nonsense rather than actual work. Or how *GPL licence is so complex and still there is no common consensus on its interpretation. Or how little it is tested in courts and even that in just two countries. Or what GPLv4 turned out to be and would it recieve the same fate as GPLv3.
I shouldn't be getting drawn into this but here goes.
The issue is freedom and IP rights.
Maybe you are missing some fundamental understanding about IP rights. If person A (might be an individual or a company) writes some software it is person A's IP with person A's copyright and they have the right to choose its licence according to their own preferences. If person B writes some other software they can want to use person A's library, however, person B has no fundamental right to use person A's IP. This right can only be derived from person A's permission which is often supplied for software in the form of a licence.
Some people like the idea of their software never ending up in a proprietary product so they choose the GPL. Others don't care so they choose liberal licences. Others want to make a dollar every time someone else uses their software so they choose proprietary licences. Other don't care about non-commercial usage but want to make a dollar every time someone else makes a dollar using their IP - they might choose dual AGPL+proprietary. Others might like to licence only for use in space/underwater/1000m above sea level/on a train again their choice not mine or yours. Even Richard Stallman recommends more liberal licences in some scenarios and actually ffmpeg might class as one of those (analogous to ogg vorbis).
In summary: In the current world people are free to choose how other people use their IP.
> We havnt even discussed the elephent in the room. How your project can turn into legal battle ground, divide the community and fill the maillist and issue tracker with nonsense rather than actual work. Or how *GPL licence is so complex and still there is no common consensus on its interpretation. Or how little it is tested in courts and even that in just two countries. Or what GPLv4 turned out to be and would it recieve the same fate as GPLv3.
With the state of software patents any project under any licence can turn into a legal battle ground.
> It seems you've created your own definitions for both "open source" and "free software" in order to exclude copyleft from both categories
Copyleft is not a requirement for open source or OSI Open Source. It is for FSF Free Software though.
I am aware of how "free software" can be misinterpreted. Thats why I havnt used it. But allow me to explain whats wrong with FSF definition. The word free implies unrestricted freedom like MIT/Public Domain which is true for users but not devs (proprietary devs to be specific). Nothing wrong with intention of this perticular definiton. But choice of the word is misleading. "republic software" may be ? Also note both are lawyers definitons.
Just curious what would you label something whose source you can view and/or modify for personal use ? Google says open source.
All this definition debate aside, last 5 posts have been about dev unfriendly restrictions of GPL/copyleft/share-alike. Free software was not mentioned at all. Only once[1] I mention open source which is to illustrate the point that proprietary does not necessarily mean you cannot view the source and cannot modify for personal use. Proprietary certainly does not come with same big restrictions as GPL. For a dev,
MIT/BSD > Proprietary with source > Proprietary >>> GPL.
> Both of these terms have definitions going back decades by now which contradict yours; in the open source case, one of the reasons for starting to using the term in the first place was to avoid possible misconceptions or misunderstandings of what "free software" referred to!
Yes both have been standardized but I doubt the actual adoption.
[1] Okay I have used it more than once. But every other usage works with either definitons.