●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byimpaledsunset ( 1337701 ) writes:
That's why I use real free and open source licenses, non abominations like the GPL. Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?
I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I like keeping my software free for everyone for ever. I'm glad you enjoy end users being robbed of their freedom.
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
If it's in the public domain, how is anyone robbed of freedom? Go grab yourself gcc, download the source, and build it yourself.
Or did you post as AC because you know that argument holds no water?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byRhacman ( 1528815 ) writes:
I'm not sure I understand how the GPL protects against this scenario. As the malicious developer I can strip the license off the GPL'd code, say that I wrote it first, and be back in the same courtroom scenario you mentioned.
●ent threshold.
bysirsnork ( 530512 ) writes:
Surely you would suggest they grab a public domain compiler given your stance on the GPL?
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
What stance?
I said that code in the public domain can't be locked away by someone who then puts it in their closed-source system. I said absolutely nothing about the merits or flaws of the GPL.
Here, you can have your words back now, they don't fit in my mouth very well.
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
Imagine FTP for instance. It's available, open, and people use it. So someone like MS implements FTP, but closes the source.
Even if they did go and get FTP source and compile it, it wouldn't work without a ton of tweaking, so they're out the ability to tweak their OS.
Oh sure, the people who are already uber-coders don't lose. But the users who might have been coders had they had more source available to look at, they lose. As does everyone they could have helped. Not any source helps here, just the source t
byCarrot007 ( 37198 ) writes:
No sure which side you are arguing for there.
>Users are hurt by not having source?
Yes indeed they are.
Users are also hurt by having GPL source.
The GPL irks me a little (though not much) because i want the source because someone wants me to have it, not they are forced to.
Being nice because you have to is not being nice.
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
Being nice because you have to is not being nice.
I care? Am I your mom?
At some small cost to the jerks and lazy the code (and other code) is available to more users, including me.
And you *only* lose the ability to call the code your own and close it away.
Seems to me all your users lose the ability to read the source code for the applications they use...
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
No one is stopping you from playing with the code. If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists. If the closed one gets improvements that make the open one look quaint, certainly there are more than enough uber-coders to reverse engineer the changes and add them back into the public domain.
I am certain you could have learned to program by reading a different set of source code had the one that you read not been available. Certainly there will always be open-source p
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
But forcing all derivative works to be open is no better than forcing all derivative works to be closed.
In your morality, maybe. But in the real world, forcing source to be open helps users far more than hurts them.
No one is stopping you from playing with the code. If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists.
Why do all you types say this, as if it isn't clear?
"What? No?! When someone uses my source my copy doesn't go away? Thanks Mister, I never knew that!"
Yes, but it doesn't acquire new features on its own, just sitting there.
If I am building a product for my company to sell, I have to avoid GPL code like it was HIV positive. That can hurt the user ...
Yeah, because nobody ever built a product around an open product before.
Sure, it doesn't fit all business models but neither does paying for a $10k library.
Seriously, do most users care more if A) the program works or B) if the source is open?
Seriously, do most dri
byDeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) writes:
But in the real world, forcing source to be open helps users far more than hurts them.
In "the real world", more people use closed-source programs than open-source programs. This is slowly starting to change, but so long as you're obsessed with "the real world", you can't ignore this fact. There would be a lot less software written if you were forced to share your source code, and I totally fail to see how less software helps users in any way.
Why do all you types say this, as if it isn't clear?
Because "all
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
You don't care about feeding the families of those programmers who are striving to make a product for a market
And you don't care about "the children", the endangered California Condor, or starving fans of Oscar Wilde.
What? You never claimed to?
Huh, funny that.
nor do you care for their users for whom such software would not exist without financial incentives.
I dislike the idea of people who don't share tools. Why would I like companies that are like that?
If there's a market it'll get filled.
There would be a lot less software written if you were forced to share your source code, and I totally fail to see how less software helps users in any way.
Totally specious. If everyone were forced to use my code despite the GPL it would be because my code was so amazing that the benefits outweighed the obligations. It's like complaining about the Quake4 engine being pricey.
In "the real world", more people use closed-source programs than open-source programs.
Exactl
● current threshold.
●rrent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
/* Halley */
(Halley's comment.)
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...