almanack_mirror/wiki.d/Gpl.Flaws

version=pmwiki-2.2.130 ordered=1 urlencoded=1
agent=Mozilla/5.0 (X11; OpenBSD amd64; rv:82.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/82.0
author=jrmu
charset=UTF-8
csum=
ctime=1615693590
host=198.251.81.119
name=Gpl.Flaws
rev=127
targets=Freedom.Independence,Linux.Flaws,License.Ircnow
text=(:title The GPL Isn't Fully Free:)%0a%0aThere are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html|GNU General Public License]] (the GPL), which was created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Unfortunately, these licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a%0aOur goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license hampers our effort towards greater user freedom.%0a%0a!! GPL Restricts User Ownership%0a%0aIn a free society, users should have the economic freedom to own property. To create a truly free society, users should have:%0a%0a# The freedom to build and advertise their business%0a# The freedom to profit from improvements they add to a free ecosystem%0a%0aOwning property means you have '''the ability to control who can use it'''. If you are '''forced''' to share something, it's not really your property anymore. If you were '''forced''' to share your house with strangers you don't want to live with, life would not feel very free. Giving users the right to own property is essential in a truly free society.%0a%0a'''The GPL, however, takes away the user's ownership rights'''. This is because the GPL takes away your exclusive rights to works you create:%0a%0a# If GPL source code is required to compile software, '''the user loses ownership of the entire program'''.%0a# If a program statically links to a GPL library, '''the user loses ownership of the entire program'''.%0a# If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, '''the user must forfeit ownership of his patents'''.%0a%0aIf the user refuses to give up ownership of his modified work, a lawyer can sue him in a court of law! This is the unhappy condition of GPL users.%0a%0aWe would, of course, be happy for the user to share his work with our network under a free license. In fact, it is necessary that many users share, because without enough users contributing free software, we would not have a free network at all. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user should have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a%0aJust as every man has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns, every user has the right to own the software he has written. If a user spends his labor and money to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a%0a!! GPL Discourages 3rd Party Developers%0a%0aWith the GPL, you are forced to surrender ownership rights over your source code. As a result, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. The FSF claims you can sell free software, but in practice, the price of the vast majority of GPL software is zero.%0a%0aVery few developers can afford to work full-time on a project by surviving on donations. Many users are forced to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable to earn a living. So instead of building up a healthy ecosystem around free protocols and free software, the GPL has forced these developers to instead build apps for non-free protocols and non-free software.%0a%0aFree protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because third party developers have no financial incentive to improve it. They have moved on to completely non-free app stores and networks.%0a%0aAlthough we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and a love for humanity, we must admit that the majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. The restrictions of the GPL make it very difficult for developers to earn an income. And without a vibrant third party ecosystem of bots, games, apps, and services, a network isn't very interesting. It will struggle to get users.%0a%0aSocial networks like Facebook and Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem of apps and advertisers. In fact, even operating systems like Microsoft Windows succeed mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem of hardware and software partners. Without financial incentives for third party developers, IRCNow will most remain too small and weak to make a positive impact on user freedom.%0a%0a!! Not Everyone Can Sell Services%0a%0aMany corporations earn money running GPL software, but it's important to note how they do it. They sell services built around the software, but not the software itself. This again is because the GPL forces them to surrender all ownership rights to the code.%0a%0aMany companies will sell services like training, technical support, or consulting around GPL software rather than the software itself. Companies using this business model include RedHat, IBM, SUSE, and others. But this business model doesn't fit every project. Many projects are written by working-class users who do not have billionaire customers willing to pay huge premiums for support.%0a%0aIf you want to write a new game bot or chat client for IRC, do you believe your users will pay for a support contract? Is it reasonable to believe that users will pay money for a training course for an email plugin? Selling services makes little sense for most small 3rd party developers. We are not talking about making Silicon Valley richer. Silicon Valley does not care about free protocols like IRC. We are talking about helping the average indie developer who is struggling to earn a living. They need us to protect their rights to property ownership.%0a%0a!! Software as a Service (SaaS) is often not free%0a%0aSince the GPL makes it very difficult to sell software at a profit, businesses often resort to legal tricks to get around the restrictions of the GPL. These loopholes do not violate the letter of the GPL, but they certainly violate the spirit of equality and freedom that a free network should stand for.%0a%0aAs one example, many companies offer cloud computing or software as a service (SaaS). To earn money, many of these companies deliberately make it difficult for to run the software on your own computer.%0a%0aMost of them will completely deny you access to the source code. They produce GPL software but you have no access to either the binary or the source. Since they don't distribute the software, there is no obligation for them to share it with you. And since you lack the code, you have no real voice in how the network is run.  This is how the majority of cloud computing services work today. They use lots of GPL-licensed software but do not provide users with any freedom.%0a%0aIn response, the FSF created the Affero GPL (AGPL). The AGPL forces service providers to surrender ownership of their code. As you might expect, this again destroys all incentive to contribute to the ecosystem. Very few developers today earn money from code licensed under the AGPL.%0a%0a!! Dual Licensing is a Double Standard%0a%0aAnother loophole used by GPL developers is dual-licensing. They will offer two versions of their software: one that you can buy at a high price, which gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed, where you surrender ownership rights. Examples of dual licensing include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a%0aThis sneaky trick actually creates a caste system, a society with two classes: free software for the rich, and GPL-restricted software for the poor. If you can afford the high licensing fees, you can keep ownership rights to your work. If you can't, you must use software you can never own.%0a%0aThe FSF allows dual licensing out of necessity; it knows that without dual licensing, many developers would have no way to earn money. But this serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''.%0a%0aThe rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling an enterprise edition for the rich and a community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a%0a!! GPL Relies on Corporate Funding%0a%0aIn order to make a living, many GPL developers look for corporate sponsorships from Silicon Valley. For example, many Linux developers work full-time for IBM, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. Their employer pays them to work on GPL code because it fits their corporate agenda. But does this make our community more free? Do we really want a patronage system where Silicon Valley controls and steers the development of our software? This will corrupt the ethics of a free community.%0a%0a[[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] is the sworn enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking their donations to avoid conflicts of interest. We should seek for financial independence. It is far safer to rely on donations and fees from our own users. These users can only afford to make these contributions if you allow them ownership of their work.%0a%0a!! Donations are not a Business Model%0a%0aOther GPL developers rely on donations from ordinary users. Here, there is no conflict of interest. But apart from a few celebrities like Wikipedia and Mozilla, the majority of developers who rely solely on user donations are starving. For example, the developer of GPG, an essential internet utility, struggled to survive on the few donations he received for his GPL-licensed work.%0a%0aSelling branded merchandise like t-shirts and coffee mugs, asking for tips, selling DVDs and flash drives are all forms of donations. Customers are willing to purchase them because of goodwill.%0a%0aDonations are nice, but they are not a business model.%0a%0a!! GPL is designed for Corporations, not Users%0a%0aThe GPL is a [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex legal document]] designed for corporations, not average users. It was written for copyright lawyers, so the document is hard to understand. Here is one example:%0a%0a--> 7. f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.%0a%0aMost users (and even lawyers) simply resort to reading the [[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html|License FAQ]] instead of reading the license itself. Others contact the FSF's lawyers for their interpretation. Few users actually understand what the license itself says.%0a%0aDoes it make sense to legally bind users to follow a license that you have not read? How can you be sure you are complying with a license you can't understand?%0a%0a(:if false:)%0a!! Collateral Damage%0a%0aunjust power%0asystem of oppression%0athese are phrases are rightfully used against Silicon Valley, but they are not phrases we ought to hurl at small indie developers trying to make a living.%0aThe problem is that many GPL users will attack indie developers as unethical and unjust, but will not criticize Silicon Valley when they slap a GPL sticker on it.%0aA nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.%0aWith the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software%0aDistributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users; however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat anyone.%0aPrimary And Secondary Injustices%0aWhen you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise at all.%0aWith proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or "owner") controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.%0aThe Injustice of Proprietariness%0aIf the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or "owner" of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.%0aadvocates unfortunately encourages%0aThe GPL gives developers a false sense of security%0aIf a corporation wants to steal the code, they will%0aand if they don't want to share it, they will find loopholes to avoid doing so%0a(:ifend:)%0a%0a!! GPL Enforcement Increases Power of Copyrights%0a%0a!! GPL Restricts Code Reuse%0a%0aThese restrictions require a very [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex license]]. %0aThese restrictions make the GPL license incompatible with other software licenses. For example, ZFS uses the CDDL. This license is incompatible with the GPL, and so ZFS software cannot be legally included in the linux kernel.%0a%0aThis harms end users. The GPL, for example, is incompatible with the App store. This effectively means that it is impossible for iOS users to ever use GPL code.%0a%0a!! GPL is Declining%0a%0aThe GPL became very popular because of the success of several flagship products, most notably the Linux kernel and the GNU C Compiler (gcc). As a result, the GPL was very popular during the 90s and early 2000s.%0a%0aHowever, times are rapidly changing. The FSF today is no longer the same organization; it has replaced its founder, the creator of the GPL, Richard Stallman. Future revisions of the GPL now lies in the hands of a bureaucracy that may not be a trustworthy guardian of user freedom.%0a%0aAs for the Linux kernel, it has been subverted by [[linux/flaws|corporate donors]] who have proven themselves hostile towards user freedom.%0a%0aIn general, there is a shift now towards permissive licenses, and this trend will only continue.%0a%0a!! GPL isn't Neutral%0a%0aThe GPL is designed to force the control of the software into the hands of the copyleft community. On the other hand, permissively-licensed code can be taken by any users of any political ideology. It makes no distinction between copyleft or copyright parties. It is neutral and can unite both factions.%0a%0a!! IRCNow License%0a%0aThe [[license/ircnow|IRCNow license]] comes closest to the public domain ideal. The user doesn't need to read any license agreements, sign any contracts, or even give the author any credit. There are no strings attached. The user is free to do whatever he wants with it.
time=1619283380
title=The GPL Isn't Fully Free
author:1619283380=jrmu
diff:1619283380:1619283351:=92c92%0a%3c (:if false:)%0a---%0a> (:if true:)%0a
host:1619283380=198.251.81.119
author:1619283351=jrmu
diff:1619283351:1619283324:=92d91%0a%3c (:if true:)%0a94a94%0a> (:if true:)%0a
host:1619283351=198.251.81.119
author:1619283324=jrmu
diff:1619283324:1619283249:=96a97%0a> %0a97a99%0a> %0a98a101%0a> %0a99a103%0a> %0a100a105%0a> %0a101a107%0a> %0a102a109%0a> %0a103a111%0a> %0a104a113%0a> %0a105a115%0a> %0a106a117%0a> %0a107a119%0a> %0a108a121%0a> %0a110a124%0a> %0a
host:1619283324=198.251.81.119
author:1619283249=jrmu
diff:1619283249:1619283194:=112,113c112,113%0a%3c With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or "owner") controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.%0a> %0a116c116%0a%3c If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or "owner" of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.%0a---%0a> If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.%0a
host:1619283249=198.251.81.119
author:1619283194=jrmu
diff:1619283194:1619283168:=118c118%0a%3c advocates unfortunately encourages%0a---%0a>  advocates unfortunately encourages%0a
host:1619283194=198.251.81.119
author:1619283168=jrmu
diff:1619283168:1619283117:=
host:1619283168=198.251.81.119
author:1619283117=jrmu
diff:1619283117:1619283020:=
host:1619283117=198.251.81.119
author:1619283020=jrmu
diff:1619283020:1618458906:=82,83c82,83%0a%3c !! GPL is designed for Corporations, not Users%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! GPL is for Corporations, not Users%0a> %0a91a92,93%0a> !! Future Versions May Enforce Censorship%0a> %0a94d95%0a%3c (:if true:)%0a95a97%0a> %0a98,103c100,105%0a%3c these are phrases are rightfully used against Silicon Valley, but they are not phrases we ought to hurl at small indie developers trying to make a living.%0a%3c %0a%3c The problem is that many GPL users will attack indie developers as unethical and unjust, but will not criticize Silicon Valley when they slap a GPL sticker on it.%0a%3c %0a%3c A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> these are phrases that could be rightfully used against Silicon Valley, but they are not phrases we ought to hurl at small indie developers trying to make a living.%0a> %0a> The problem is that many GPL users will attack indie developers as unethical and unjust, but will not criticize their Silicon Valley patrons because they slap a GPL sticker on it.%0a> %0a>  A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.%0a> %0a124,125d125%0a%3c %0a%3c (:ifend:)%0a
host:1619283020=198.251.81.119
author:1618458906=jrmu
diff:1618458906:1617500778:=34c34%0a%3c Free protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because third party developers have no financial incentive to improve it. They have moved on to completely non-free app stores and networks.%0a---%0a> Free protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because third party developers have no financial incentive to improve it. They have moved on to despotic app stores and tyrannical networks.%0a
host:1618458906=198.251.81.119
author:1617500778=jrmu
diff:1617500778:1615906497:=94c94,96%0a%3c !! Collateral Damage%0a---%0a> !! Holier Than Thou%0a> %0a> Unfortunately, some GPL users end up adopting a holier-than-thou attitude that tends to alienate and irritate the user community.%0a
host:1617500778=198.251.81.44
author:1615906497=jrmu
diff:1615906497:1615904354:=
host:1615906497=198.251.81.119
author:1615904354=jrmu
diff:1615904354:1615902892:=
host:1615904354=198.251.81.119
author:1615902892=jrmu
diff:1615902892:1615901961:=123,129d122%0a%3c %0a%3c The GPL gives developers a false sense of security%0a%3c %0a%3c If a corporation wants to steal the code, they will%0a%3c and if they don't want to share it, they will find loopholes to avoid doing so%0a%3c %0a%3c !! GPL Enforcement Increases Power of Copyrights%0a
host:1615902892=125.231.16.136
author:1615901961=jrmu
diff:1615901961:1615900272:=105,120d104%0a%3c %0a%3c  A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.%0a%3c %0a%3c With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software%0a%3c %0a%3c Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users; however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat anyone.%0a%3c %0a%3c Primary And Secondary Injustices%0a%3c %0a%3c When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise at all.%0a%3c %0a%3c With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.%0a%3c %0a%3c The Injustice of Proprietariness%0a%3c %0a%3c If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.%0a
host:1615901961=125.231.16.136
author:1615900272=jrmu
diff:1615900272:1615898221:=96,106c96%0a%3c Unfortunately, some GPL users end up adopting a holier-than-thou attitude that tends to alienate and irritate the user community.%0a%3c %0a%3c unjust power%0a%3c %0a%3c system of oppression%0a%3c %0a%3c these are phrases that could be rightfully used against Silicon Valley, but they are not phrases we ought to hurl at small indie developers trying to make a living.%0a%3c %0a%3c The problem is that many GPL users will attack indie developers as unethical and unjust, but will not criticize their Silicon Valley patrons because they slap a GPL sticker on it.%0a%3c %0a%3c  advocates unfortunately encourages%0a---%0a> %0a
host:1615900272=125.231.16.136
author:1615898221=jrmu
diff:1615898221:1615897432:=94c94%0a%3c !! Holier Than Thou%0a---%0a> !! GPL Users Can Become Holier Than Thou%0a
host:1615898221=125.231.16.136
author:1615897432=jrmu
diff:1615897432:1615897344:=94c94%0a%3c !! GPL Users Can Become Holier Than Thou%0a---%0a> !! The GPL Encourages Holier Than Thou%0a
host:1615897432=198.251.81.119
author:1615897344=jrmu
diff:1615897344:1615897124:=93,94d92%0a%3c %0a%3c !! The GPL Encourages Holier Than Thou%0a
host:1615897344=198.251.81.119
author:1615897124=jrmu
diff:1615897124:1615896996:=100,101d99%0a%3c %0a%3c This harms end users. The GPL, for example, is incompatible with the App store. This effectively means that it is impossible for iOS users to ever use GPL code.%0a
host:1615897124=198.251.81.119
author:1615896996=jrmu
diff:1615896996:1615896548:=91,94d90%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Future Versions May Enforce Censorship%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a
host:1615896996=198.251.81.119
author:1615896548=jrmu
diff:1615896548:1615896431:=90c90%0a%3c Does it make sense to legally bind users to follow a license that you have not read? How can you be sure you are complying with a license you can't understand?%0a---%0a> Does it make sense to legally bind your users to follow a license that you have not read? How can you be sure you are complying with a license you can't understand?%0a
host:1615896548=198.251.81.119
author:1615896431=jrmu
diff:1615896431:1615896357:=84,85c84,85%0a%3c The GPL is a [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex legal document]] designed for corporations, not average users. It was written for copyright lawyers, so the document is hard to understand. Here is one example:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> The GPL is a [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex legal document]] designed for corporations, not average users. It was written for copyright lawyers; it uses many technical phrases that average users cannot understand. Here is one example:%0a> %0a90c90%0a%3c Does it make sense to legally bind your users to follow a license that you have not read? How can you be sure you are complying with a license you can't understand?%0a---%0a> Does it make sense to legally bind your users to follow a license that you have not read and do not understand?%0a
host:1615896431=198.251.81.119
author:1615896357=jrmu
diff:1615896357:1615896279:=88c88%0a%3c Most users (and even lawyers) simply resort to reading the [[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html|License FAQ]] instead of reading the license itself. Others contact the FSF's lawyers for their interpretation. Few users actually understand what the license itself says.%0a---%0a> Most users (and even lawyers) simply resort to reading the [[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html|License FAQ]] instead of reading the license itself. Others contact the FSF's lawyers for their interpretation. Few users actually understand what the license itself says. This gives the FSF a lot of control over the definition of 'free software'.%0a
host:1615896357=198.251.81.119
author:1615896279=jrmu
diff:1615896279:1615895924:=84,91c84,85%0a%3c The GPL is a [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex legal document]] designed for corporations, not average users. It was written for copyright lawyers; it uses many technical phrases that average users cannot understand. Here is one example:%0a%3c %0a%3c --> 7. f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.%0a%3c %0a%3c Most users (and even lawyers) simply resort to reading the [[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html|License FAQ]] instead of reading the license itself. Others contact the FSF's lawyers for their interpretation. Few users actually understand what the license itself says. This gives the FSF a lot of control over the definition of 'free software'.%0a%3c %0a%3c Does it make sense to legally bind your users to follow a license that you have not read and do not understand?%0a%3c %0a---%0a> The GPL is a [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex legal document]] designed for corporations, not average users.%0a> %0a94c88,89%0a%3c These restrictions require a very [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex license]]. %0a---%0a> These restrictions require a very [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex license]]. There are many technical phrases that are hard to understand without a lawyer. Many users (and even lawyers) resort to reading the License FAQ instead of reading the license itself. Others contact the FSF's lawyers for their interpretation. Few users actually understand what the license itself says. This gives the FSF a lot of control over the definition of 'free software'.%0a> %0a
host:1615896279=198.251.81.119
author:1615895924=jrmu
diff:1615895924:1615895764:=81,84d80%0a%3c %0a%3c !! GPL is for Corporations, not Users%0a%3c %0a%3c The GPL is a [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex legal document]] designed for corporations, not average users.%0a
host:1615895924=198.251.81.119
author:1615895764=jrmu
diff:1615895764:1615895610:=100a101,106%0a> %0a> !! GPL Doesn't Stop Silicon Valley%0a> %0a> A huge mistake is to assume%0a> %0a> !! GPL discourages export%0a
host:1615895764=198.251.81.119
author:1615895610=jrmu
diff:1615895610:1615895569:=72c72%0a%3c [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] is the sworn enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking their donations to avoid conflicts of interest. We should seek for financial independence. It is far safer to rely on donations and fees from our own users. These users can only afford to make these contributions if you allow them ownership of their work.%0a---%0a> [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] is the sworn enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking their donations to avoid conflicts of interest. We should seek for financial independence. It is far safer to rely on donations and fees from our own users. Users can only afford to make these contributions if you allow them ownership of their work.%0a
host:1615895610=198.251.81.119
author:1615895569=jrmu
diff:1615895569:1615895468:=72c72%0a%3c [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] is the sworn enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking their donations to avoid conflicts of interest. We should seek for financial independence. It is far safer to rely on donations and fees from our own users. Users can only afford to make these contributions if you allow them ownership of their work.%0a---%0a> [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] has long been the enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking donations from the sworn enemies of liberty to avoid conflicts of interest. We should seek for financial independence. It is far safer to rely on donations and fees from our own users. Users can only afford to make these contributions if you allow them ownership of their work.%0a
host:1615895569=198.251.81.119
author:1615895468=jrmu
diff:1615895468:1615894875:=78c78%0a%3c Selling branded merchandise like t-shirts and coffee mugs, asking for tips, selling DVDs and flash drives are all forms of donations. Customers are willing to purchase them because of goodwill.%0a---%0a> Selling branded merchandise like t-shirts and coffee bugs, asking for tips, selling DVDs and flash drives are all forms of donations. Customers are willing to purchase them mostly because of goodwill.%0a
host:1615895468=198.251.81.119
author:1615894875=jrmu
diff:1615894875:1615894862:=5c5%0a%3c Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license hampers our effort towards greater user freedom.%0a---%0a> Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a
host:1615894875=198.251.81.119
author:1615894862=jrmu
diff:1615894862:1615894848:=5c5%0a%3c Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a---%0a> Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has hampered and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a
host:1615894862=198.251.81.119
author:1615894848=jrmu
diff:1615894848:1615894836:=5c5%0a%3c Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has hampered and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a---%0a> Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has interfered with and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a
host:1615894848=198.251.81.119
author:1615894836=jrmu
diff:1615894836:1615894758:=5c5%0a%3c Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has interfered with and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a---%0a> Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a
host:1615894836=198.251.81.119
author:1615894758=jrmu
diff:1615894758:1615894739:=5c5%0a%3c Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage these developers to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a---%0a> Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage them to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a
host:1615894758=198.251.81.119
author:1615894739=jrmu
diff:1615894739:1615894410:=5,6d4%0a%3c Our goal is not to discourage GPL developers. We know many of them work out of a sincere conviction that they are helping the free software community. However, we encourage them to consider using a more free license. The GPL license has and continues to hamper our efforts towards greater user freedom.%0a%3c %0a76c74%0a%3c Other GPL developers rely on donations from ordinary users. Here, there is no conflict of interest. But apart from a few celebrities like Wikipedia and Mozilla, the majority of developers who rely solely on user donations are starving. For example, the developer of GPG, an essential internet utility, struggled to survive on the few donations he received for his GPL-licensed work.%0a---%0a> A lot of GPL software relies on donations. But apart from a few celebrities like Wikipedia and Mozilla, the majority of developers who rely solely on donations are starving. For example, the developer of GPG, an essential internet utility, struggled to survive on the few donations he received for his GPL-licensed work.%0a
host:1615894739=198.251.81.119
author:1615894410=jrmu
diff:1615894410:1615894281:=70c70%0a%3c [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] has long been the enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking donations from the sworn enemies of liberty to avoid conflicts of interest. We should seek for financial independence. It is far safer to rely on donations and fees from our own users. Users can only afford to make these contributions if you allow them ownership of their work.%0a---%0a> [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] has long been the enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking donations from the sworn enemies of liberty to avoid conflicts of interest. It is far safer to rely on donations and fees from our own users. Users can only afford to make these contributions if you allow them ownership of their work.%0a
host:1615894410=198.251.81.119
author:1615894281=jrmu
diff:1615894281:1615894234:=70c70%0a%3c [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] has long been the enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking donations from the sworn enemies of liberty to avoid conflicts of interest. It is far safer to rely on donations and fees from our own users. Users can only afford to make these contributions if you allow them ownership of their work.%0a---%0a> [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] has long been the enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking donations from the sworn enemies of liberty to avoid conflicts of interest. It is far safer to rely on donations, fees, and contributions from our own users. This is only possible if you allow users ownership of their work.%0a
host:1615894281=198.251.81.119
author:1615894234=jrmu
diff:1615894234:1615894201:=70c70%0a%3c [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] has long been the enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking donations from the sworn enemies of liberty to avoid conflicts of interest. It is far safer to rely on donations, fees, and contributions from our own users. This is only possible if you allow users ownership of their work.%0a---%0a> [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] has long been the enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money towards software development without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking donations from the sworn enemies of liberty to avoid conflicts of interest. It is far safer to rely on donations, fees, and contributions from our own users. This is only possible if you allow users ownership of their work.%0a
host:1615894234=198.251.81.119
author:1615894201=jrmu
diff:1615894201:1615893463:=68,70c68,70%0a%3c In order to make a living, many GPL developers look for corporate sponsorships from Silicon Valley. For example, many Linux developers work full-time for IBM, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. Their employer pays them to work on GPL code because it fits their corporate agenda. But does this make our community more free? Do we really want a patronage system where Silicon Valley controls and steers the development of our software? This will corrupt the ethics of a free community.%0a%3c %0a%3c [[freedom/independence|Silicon Valley]] has long been the enemy of user freedom. It is naive to believe that Silicon Valley will donate money towards software development without expecting control and influence. Our community should avoid seeking donations from the sworn enemies of liberty to avoid conflicts of interest. It is far safer to rely on donations, fees, and contributions from our own users. This is only possible if you allow users ownership of their work.%0a---%0a> In order to make a living, many GPL developers look for corporate sponsorships from Silicon Valley. For example, many Linux developers work full-time for IBM, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. Their work on GPL code is paid for by their employer. But, a patronage system where Silicon Valley controls and steers the agenda tends to corrupt the ethics of the free software community.%0a> %0a> %0a
host:1615894201=198.251.81.119
author:1615893463=jrmu
diff:1615893463:1615893441:=68c68%0a%3c In order to make a living, many GPL developers look for corporate sponsorships from Silicon Valley. For example, many Linux developers work full-time for IBM, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. Their work on GPL code is paid for by their employer. But, a patronage system where Silicon Valley controls and steers the agenda tends to corrupt the ethics of the free software community.%0a---%0a> In order to make a living, many GPL developers look for corporate sponsorships from Silicon Valley. For example, many Linux developers work full-time for IBM, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. Their work on GPL code is paid for by their employer. A patronage system where Silicon Valley controls and steers the agenda tends to corrupt the ethics of the free software community.%0a
host:1615893463=198.251.81.119
author:1615893441=jrmu
diff:1615893441:1615874911:=68,70c68%0a%3c In order to make a living, many GPL developers look for corporate sponsorships from Silicon Valley. For example, many Linux developers work full-time for IBM, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. Their work on GPL code is paid for by their employer. A patronage system where Silicon Valley controls and steers the agenda tends to corrupt the ethics of the free software community.%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a---%0a> The other way %0a
host:1615893441=198.251.81.119
author:1615874911=jrmu
diff:1615874911:1615874763:=72c72%0a%3c A lot of GPL software relies on donations. But apart from a few celebrities like Wikipedia and Mozilla, the majority of developers who rely solely on donations are starving. For example, the developer of GPG, an essential internet utility, struggled to survive on the few donations he received for his GPL-licensed work.%0a---%0a> A lot of GPL software relies on donations. But apart from a few celebrities like Wikipedia and Mozilla, the majority of indie GPL developers who rely on donations are starving. For example, the developer of GPG, an essential internet utility, struggled to survive on the few donations he received.%0a
host:1615874911=198.251.81.119
author:1615874763=jrmu
diff:1615874763:1615874688:=62c62%0a%3c The FSF allows dual licensing out of necessity; it knows that without dual licensing, many developers would have no way to earn money. But this serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''.%0a---%0a> The FSF allows dual licensing out of necessity; it knows that without dual licensing, many developers would have no way to survive. But this serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''.%0a
host:1615874763=198.251.81.119
author:1615874688=jrmu
diff:1615874688:1615874661:=60c60%0a%3c This sneaky trick actually creates a caste system, a society with two classes: free software for the rich, and GPL-restricted software for the poor. If you can afford the high licensing fees, you can keep ownership rights to your work. If you can't, you must use software you can never own.%0a---%0a> This sneaky trick actually creates a caste system, a society with two classes: free software for the rich, and GPL-restricted software for the poor. If you can afford the high licensing fees, you can keep ownership rights to your work. If you can't, you must use software with inferior rights.%0a
host:1615874688=198.251.81.119
author:1615874661=jrmu
diff:1615874661:1615869417:=
host:1615874661=198.251.81.119
author:1615869417=jrmu
diff:1615869417:1615868700:=52,53c52,53%0a%3c Most of them will completely deny you access to the source code. They produce GPL software but you have no access to either the binary or the source. Since they don't distribute the software, there is no obligation for them to share it with you. And since you lack the code, you have no real voice in how the network is run.  This is how the majority of cloud computing services work today. They use lots of GPL-licensed software but do not provide users with any freedom.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Most of them will completely deny you access to the source code. They produce GPL software but you have no access to either the binary or the source. Since they don't distribute the software, there is no obligation for them to share it with you. This is how the majority of cloud computing services work today. They use lots of GPL-licensed software but do not provide users with any freedom.%0a> %0a69,76c69,83%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Donations are not a Business Model%0a%3c %0a%3c A lot of GPL software relies on donations. But apart from a few celebrities like Wikipedia and Mozilla, the majority of indie GPL developers who rely on donations are starving. For example, the developer of GPG, an essential internet utility, struggled to survive on the few donations he received.%0a%3c %0a%3c Selling branded merchandise like t-shirts and coffee bugs, asking for tips, selling DVDs and flash drives are all forms of donations. Customers are willing to purchase them mostly because of goodwill.%0a%3c %0a%3c Donations are nice, but they are not a business model.%0a---%0a> Voluntary donations%0a> Main article: Donationware%0a> %0a> There were experiments by Independent developers to fund development of open-source software donation-driven directly by the users, e.g. with the Illumination Software Creator in 2012.[12] Since 2011, SourceForge allows users to donate to hosted projects that opted to accept donations, which is enabled via PayPal.[13]%0a> %0a> Larger donation campaigns also exist. In 2004 the Mozilla Foundation carried out a fundraising campaign to support the launch of the Firefox 1.0 web browser. It placed a two-page ad in the December 16 edition of The New York Times listing the names of the thousands who had donated.[14][15]%0a> %0a> In May 2019, GitHub, a Git-based software repository hosting, management and collaboration platform owned by Microsoft, launched a Sponsors program that allows people who support certain open source projects hosted on GitHub to donate money to developers who contribute and maintain the project.[16] %0a> %0a> Another possibility is offering open-source software in source code form only, while providing executable binaries to paying customers only, offering the commercial service of compiling and packaging of the software. Also, providing goods like physical installation media (e.g., DVDs) can be a commercial service. %0a> !! Donations are not Sales%0a> %0a> Branded merchandise%0a> %0a> Some open-source organizations such as the Mozilla Foundation[7] and the Wikimedia Foundation[8] sell branded merchandise articles like t-shirts and coffee mugs. This can be also seen as an additional service provided to the user community. %0a
host:1615869417=125.231.16.136
author:1615868700=jrmu
diff:1615868700:1615868483:=44c44%0a%3c If you want to write a new game bot or chat client for IRC, do you believe your users will pay for a support contract? Is it reasonable to believe that users will pay money for a training course for an email plugin? Selling services makes little sense for most small 3rd party developers. We are not talking about making Silicon Valley richer. Silicon Valley does not care about free protocols like IRC. We are talking about helping the average indie developer who is struggling to earn a living. They need us to protect their rights to property ownership.%0a---%0a> If you want to write a new game bot or chat client for IRC, do you believe your users will pay for a support contract? Is it reasonable to believe that users will pay money for a training course for an email plugin? Selling services makes little sense for most small 3rd party developers. We are not talking about making Silicon Valley richer. We are talking about helping the average indie developer who is struggling to earn a living. They need us to protect their rights to property ownership.%0a
host:1615868700=125.231.16.136
author:1615868483=jrmu
diff:1615868483:1615868123:=54,55c54,55%0a%3c In response, the FSF created the Affero GPL (AGPL). The AGPL forces service providers to surrender ownership of their code. As you might expect, this again destroys all incentive to contribute to the ecosystem. Very few developers today earn money from code licensed under the AGPL.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> In response, the FSF created the Affero GPL (AGPL). The AGPL forces service providers to share the code. As you might expect, this again destroys all incentive to contribute to the ecosystem. Very few developers today want to use code licensed under the AGPL because it forces network operators to surrender ownership of their property.%0a> %0a58,64c58,62%0a%3c Another loophole used by GPL developers is dual-licensing. They will offer two versions of their software: one that you can buy at a high price, which gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed, where you surrender ownership rights. Examples of dual licensing include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a%3c %0a%3c This sneaky trick actually creates a caste system, a society with two classes: free software for the rich, and GPL-restricted software for the poor. If you can afford the high licensing fees, you can keep ownership rights to your work. If you can't, you must use software with inferior rights.%0a%3c %0a%3c The FSF allows dual licensing out of necessity; it knows that without dual licensing, many developers would have no way to survive. But this serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''.%0a%3c %0a%3c The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling an enterprise edition for the rich and a community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a---%0a> As one example, developers of GPL software can resort to dual licensing. They will offer two versions of their software: one that you can buy at a high price, which gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed, where you surrender ownership rights. Examples of dual licensing include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a> %0a> The FSF allows dual licensing out of necessity; it knows that without dual licensing, many developers would have no way to survive. But dual licensing creates a dual class society, where rich users can buy free software, while poor users are forced to use the GPL.%0a> %0a> This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling an enterprise edition for the rich and a community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a
host:1615868483=125.231.16.136
author:1615868123=jrmu
diff:1615868123:1615867102:=46,47c46,49%0a%3c !! Software as a Service (SaaS) is often not free%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! GPL Encourages Double Standards%0a> %0a> !!! Dual Licensing%0a> %0a50,57d51%0a%3c As one example, many companies offer cloud computing or software as a service (SaaS). To earn money, many of these companies deliberately make it difficult for to run the software on your own computer.%0a%3c %0a%3c Most of them will completely deny you access to the source code. They produce GPL software but you have no access to either the binary or the source. Since they don't distribute the software, there is no obligation for them to share it with you. This is how the majority of cloud computing services work today. They use lots of GPL-licensed software but do not provide users with any freedom.%0a%3c %0a%3c In response, the FSF created the Affero GPL (AGPL). The AGPL forces service providers to share the code. As you might expect, this again destroys all incentive to contribute to the ecosystem. Very few developers today want to use code licensed under the AGPL because it forces network operators to surrender ownership of their property.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Dual Licensing is a Double Standard%0a%3c %0a67,81d60%0a%3c Voluntary donations%0a%3c Main article: Donationware%0a%3c %0a%3c There were experiments by Independent developers to fund development of open-source software donation-driven directly by the users, e.g. with the Illumination Software Creator in 2012.[12] Since 2011, SourceForge allows users to donate to hosted projects that opted to accept donations, which is enabled via PayPal.[13]%0a%3c %0a%3c Larger donation campaigns also exist. In 2004 the Mozilla Foundation carried out a fundraising campaign to support the launch of the Firefox 1.0 web browser. It placed a two-page ad in the December 16 edition of The New York Times listing the names of the thousands who had donated.[14][15]%0a%3c %0a%3c In May 2019, GitHub, a Git-based software repository hosting, management and collaboration platform owned by Microsoft, launched a Sponsors program that allows people who support certain open source projects hosted on GitHub to donate money to developers who contribute and maintain the project.[16] %0a%3c %0a%3c Another possibility is offering open-source software in source code form only, while providing executable binaries to paying customers only, offering the commercial service of compiling and packaging of the software. Also, providing goods like physical installation media (e.g., DVDs) can be a commercial service. %0a%3c !! Donations are not Sales%0a%3c %0a%3c Branded merchandise%0a%3c %0a%3c Some open-source organizations such as the Mozilla Foundation[7] and the Wikimedia Foundation[8] sell branded merchandise articles like t-shirts and coffee mugs. This can be also seen as an additional service provided to the user community. %0a
host:1615868123=125.231.16.136
author:1615867102=jrmu
diff:1615867102:1615866978:=44c44%0a%3c If you want to write a new game bot or chat client for IRC, do you believe your users will pay for a support contract? Is it reasonable to believe that users will pay money for a training course for an email plugin? Selling services makes little sense for most small 3rd party developers. We are not talking about making Silicon Valley richer. We are talking about helping the average indie developer who is struggling to earn a living. They need us to protect their rights to property ownership.%0a---%0a> If you want to write a new game bot or chat client for IRC, do you believe your users will pay for a support contract? Is it reasonable to believe that users will pay money for a training course for an email plugin? Selling services makes little sense for most small 3rd party developers. We are not talking about making Silicon Valley richer. We are talking about helping the average user who is struggling to make a living, who we need to empower the most.%0a
host:1615867102=125.231.16.136
author:1615866978=jrmu
diff:1615866978:1615866864:=44c44%0a%3c If you want to write a new game bot or chat client for IRC, do you believe your users will pay for a support contract? Is it reasonable to believe that users will pay money for a training course for an email plugin? Selling services makes little sense for most small 3rd party developers. We are not talking about making Silicon Valley richer. We are talking about helping the average user who is struggling to make a living, who we need to empower the most.%0a---%0a> If you want to write a new game bot for IRC or an IRC chat client, do you believe your users will pay for a support contract? Is it reasonable to believe that users will pay money for a training course for a chat client? Selling services makes little sense for most small 3rd party developers. These little users are the ones we need to empower the most.%0a
host:1615866978=125.231.16.136
author:1615866864=jrmu
diff:1615866864:1615866836:=42c42%0a%3c Many companies will sell services like training, technical support, or consulting around GPL software rather than the software itself. Companies using this business model include RedHat, IBM, SUSE, and others. But this business model doesn't fit every project. Many projects are written by working-class users who do not have billionaire customers willing to pay huge premiums for support.%0a---%0a> Many companies will sell services like training, technical support, or consulting around GPL software rather than the software itself. Companies using this business model include RedHat, IBM, SUSE, and others. But this business model doesn't fit every project. Many projects are written by working-class users do not have billionaire customers who are willing to pay huge premiums for support.%0a
host:1615866864=125.231.16.136
author:1615866836=jrmu
diff:1615866836:1615866798:=42c42%0a%3c Many companies will sell services like training, technical support, or consulting around GPL software rather than the software itself. Companies using this business model include RedHat, IBM, SUSE, and others. But this business model doesn't fit every project. Many projects are written by working-class users do not have billionaire customers who are willing to pay huge premiums for support.%0a---%0a> Many companies will sell services like training, technical support, or consulting around GPL software rather than the software itself. Companies using this business model include RedHat, IBM, SUSE, and others. But this business model doesn't fit every project. Many projects written by working-class users do not have billionaire customers who are willing to pay huge premiums for support.%0a
host:1615866836=125.231.16.136
author:1615866798=jrmu
diff:1615866798:1615866761:=40c40%0a%3c Many corporations earn money running GPL software, but it's important to note how they do it. They sell services built around the software, but not the software itself. This again is because the GPL forces them to surrender all ownership rights to the code.%0a---%0a> Many corporations earn money through GPL software, but it's important to note how they do it. They sell services built around the software, but not the software itself. This again is because the GPL forces them to surrender all ownership rights to the code.%0a
host:1615866798=125.231.16.136
author:1615866761=jrmu
diff:1615866761:1615866323:=42,44c42%0a%3c Many companies will sell services like training, technical support, or consulting around GPL software rather than the software itself. Companies using this business model include RedHat, IBM, SUSE, and others. But this business model doesn't fit every project. Many projects written by working-class users do not have billionaire customers who are willing to pay huge premiums for support.%0a%3c %0a%3c If you want to write a new game bot for IRC or an IRC chat client, do you believe your users will pay for a support contract? Is it reasonable to believe that users will pay money for a training course for a chat client? Selling services makes little sense for most small 3rd party developers. These little users are the ones we need to empower the most.%0a---%0a> Many companies will sell services like training, technical support, or consulting around GPL software rather than the software itself. Companies using this business model include RedHat, IBM, SUSE, and others. But this business model only works for a few type of %0a
host:1615866761=125.231.16.136
author:1615866323=jrmu
diff:1615866323:1615866090:=40,42c40,42%0a%3c Many corporations earn money through GPL software, but it's important to note how they do it. They sell services built around the software, but not the software itself. This again is because the GPL forces them to surrender all ownership rights to the code.%0a%3c %0a%3c Many companies will sell services like training, technical support, or consulting around GPL software rather than the software itself. Companies using this business model include RedHat, IBM, SUSE, and others. But this business model only works for a few type of %0a---%0a> Many corporations earn money through GPL software, but it's important to note how they do it. They sell services built around the software, but not the software itself, since the GPL forces them to surrender all ownership rights to the code.%0a> %0a> %0a
host:1615866323=125.231.16.136
author:1615866090=jrmu
diff:1615866090:1615865740:=37,42d36%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Not Everyone Can Sell Services%0a%3c %0a%3c Many corporations earn money through GPL software, but it's important to note how they do it. They sell services built around the software, but not the software itself, since the GPL forces them to surrender all ownership rights to the code.%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a
host:1615866090=125.231.16.136
author:1615865740=jrmu
diff:1615865740:1615865406:=24c24%0a%3c Just as every man has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns, every user has the right to own the software he has written. If a user spends his labor and money to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a---%0a> Just as every man has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns, every user has the right to own the software he has written. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a
host:1615865740=125.231.16.136
author:1615865406=jrmu
diff:1615865406:1615865313:=12c12%0a%3c Owning property means you have '''the ability to control who can use it'''. If you are '''forced''' to share something, it's not really your property anymore. If you were '''forced''' to share your house with strangers you don't want to live with, life would not feel very free. Giving users the right to own property is essential in a truly free society.%0a---%0a> Owning property means you have '''the ability to control who can use it'''. If you are '''forced''' to share something, it's not really your property anymore. Giving users the right to own property is essential in a truly free society.%0a
host:1615865406=125.231.16.136
author:1615865313=jrmu
diff:1615865313:1615864967:=12c12%0a%3c Owning property means you have '''the ability to control who can use it'''. If you are '''forced''' to share something, it's not really your property anymore. Giving users the right to own property is essential in a truly free society.%0a---%0a> Owning property means you have '''exclusive''' rights to property and the ability to control who can use it. If you are '''forced''' to share something, it's not really your property anymore. Giving users the right to own property is essential in a truly free society.%0a
host:1615865313=125.231.16.136
author:1615864967=jrmu
diff:1615864967:1615864907:=12,14c12,14%0a%3c Owning property means you have '''exclusive''' rights to property and the ability to control who can use it. If you are '''forced''' to share something, it's not really your property anymore. Giving users the right to own property is essential in a truly free society.%0a%3c %0a%3c '''The GPL, however, takes away the user's ownership rights'''. This is because the GPL takes away your exclusive rights to works you create:%0a---%0a> Owning property means you have '''exclusive''' rights to property and the ability to control who can use it. Giving users the right to own property is essential in a truly free society.%0a> %0a> '''The GPL, however, takes away the user's ownership rights'''. This is because the GPL takes away your exclusive rights to your works:%0a
host:1615864967=125.231.16.136
author:1615864907=jrmu
diff:1615864907:1615771167:=12,14c12%0a%3c Owning property means you have '''exclusive''' rights to property and the ability to control who can use it. Giving users the right to own property is essential in a truly free society.%0a%3c %0a%3c '''The GPL, however, takes away the user's ownership rights'''. This is because the GPL takes away your exclusive rights to your works:%0a---%0a> '''The GPL, however, takes away the user's ownership rights''':%0a
host:1615864907=125.231.16.136
author:1615771167=jrmu
diff:1615771167:1615764958:=
host:1615771167=198.251.81.119
author:1615764958=jrmu
diff:1615764958:1615764912:=46c46%0a%3c This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling an enterprise edition for the rich and a community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a---%0a> This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling a feature-rich enterprise edition for the rich and a crippled community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a
host:1615764958=198.251.81.119
author:1615764912=jrmu
diff:1615764912:1615764883:=46c46%0a%3c This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling a feature-rich enterprise edition for the rich and a crippled community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a---%0a> This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling an enterprise edition for the rich and a community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a
host:1615764912=198.251.81.119
author:1615764883=jrmu
diff:1615764883:1615764867:=46c46%0a%3c This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts the proposition that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling an enterprise edition for the rich and a community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a---%0a> This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts our declaration of network independence where we say that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling an enterprise edition for the rich and a community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a
host:1615764883=198.251.81.119
author:1615764867=jrmu
diff:1615764867:1615764537:=42,46c42,46%0a%3c As one example, developers of GPL software can resort to dual licensing. They will offer two versions of their software: one that you can buy at a high price, which gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed, where you surrender ownership rights. Examples of dual licensing include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a%3c %0a%3c The FSF allows dual licensing out of necessity; it knows that without dual licensing, many developers would have no way to survive. But dual licensing creates a dual class society, where rich users can buy free software, while poor users are forced to use the GPL.%0a%3c %0a%3c This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts our declaration of network independence where we say that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. We should not be selling an enterprise edition for the rich and a community edition for the poor. Every user, no matter his social condition, should get the same access to premium quality code. Every user should have an equal opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a---%0a> As one example, developers of GPL software can resort to dual licensing. They will sell two versions of their software: one that is free, where you can do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed. Examples of dual licensing include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a> %0a> The FSF allows dual licensing out of necessity; it knows that without dual licensing, many developers would have no way to survive. But dual licensing creates a dual class society. Rich users can get free software, but poor users are forced to use the GPL.%0a> %0a> This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts our declaration of network independence where we say that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. Every user, no matter his social condition, should have the same opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a
host:1615764867=198.251.81.119
author:1615764537=jrmu
diff:1615764537:1615764453:=3c3%0a%3c There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html|GNU General Public License]] (the GPL), which was created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Unfortunately, these licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a---%0a> There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html|GNU General Public License]] (the GPL). Unfortunately, these licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a
host:1615764537=198.251.81.119
author:1615764453=jrmu
diff:1615764453:1615764409:=34c34%0a%3c Social networks like Facebook and Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem of apps and advertisers. In fact, even operating systems like Microsoft Windows succeed mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem of hardware and software partners. Without financial incentives for third party developers, IRCNow will most remain too small and weak to make a positive impact on user freedom.%0a---%0a> Social networks like Facebook and Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem of apps and advertisers. In fact, even operating systems like Microsoft Windows succeed mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem of hardware and software partners. Without strong, health relations with third parties, IRCNow will most remain too small and weak to make a positive impact on user freedom.%0a
host:1615764453=198.251.81.119
author:1615764409=jrmu
diff:1615764409:1615764341:=32c32%0a%3c Although we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and a love for humanity, we must admit that the majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. The restrictions of the GPL make it very difficult for developers to earn an income. And without a vibrant third party ecosystem of bots, games, apps, and services, a network isn't very interesting. It will struggle to get users.%0a---%0a> Although we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and a love for humanity, we must admit that the majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. The restrictions of the GPL make it very difficult for developers to earn an income. And without a vibrant third party ecosystem of bots, games, clients, and services, a network isn't very interesting. It will struggle to get users.%0a
host:1615764409=198.251.81.119
author:1615764341=jrmu
diff:1615764341:1615764230:=
host:1615764341=198.251.81.119
author:1615764230=jrmu
diff:1615764230:1615735113:=20,21c20,21%0a%3c We would, of course, be happy for the user to share his work with our network under a free license. In fact, it is necessary that many users share, because without enough users contributing free software, we would not have a free network at all. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user should have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> We would, of course, be happy for the user to share his work with us under a free license. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user should have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a> %0a49,50d48%0a%3c %0a%3c The other way %0a
host:1615764230=198.251.81.119
author:1615735113=jrmu
diff:1615735113:1615734243:=40,47c40,49%0a%3c Since the GPL makes it very difficult to sell software at a profit, businesses often resort to legal tricks to get around the restrictions of the GPL. These loopholes do not violate the letter of the GPL, but they certainly violate the spirit of equality and freedom that a free network should stand for.%0a%3c %0a%3c As one example, developers of GPL software can resort to dual licensing. They will sell two versions of their software: one that is free, where you can do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed. Examples of dual licensing include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a%3c %0a%3c The FSF allows dual licensing out of necessity; it knows that without dual licensing, many developers would have no way to survive. But dual licensing creates a dual class society. Rich users can get free software, but poor users are forced to use the GPL.%0a%3c %0a%3c This serious double standard cannot be ignored. It fundamentally contradicts our declaration of network independence where we say that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network. Every user, no matter his social condition, should have the same opportunity to succeed on our network.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Since the GPL makes it almost impossible to sell software at a profit, businesses often resort to legal tricks to get around the restrictions of the GPL. Although they do not violate the letter of the GPL, they certainly violate the spirit of equality and freedom that the GPL claims to stand for. These serious double standards are often ignored by the copyleft community.%0a> %0a> As one example, the developers of GPL software can resort to dual licensing. They will sell two versions of their software: one that is free, where you can do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed. Examples include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a> %0a> This creates a dual class society. Rich corporations can get free software, but poor users are forced to use the GPL.%0a> %0a> This isn't what IRCNow stands for. In our declaration of network independence, we say that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network.%0a> %0a>  He should not have to consult the FSF or its lawyers for permission. He should not have to resort to special license exceptions.%0a> %0a58,65c60,65%0a%3c The GPL became very popular because of the success of several flagship products, most notably the Linux kernel and the GNU C Compiler (gcc). As a result, the GPL was very popular during the 90s and early 2000s.%0a%3c %0a%3c However, times are rapidly changing. The FSF today is no longer the same organization; it has replaced its founder, the creator of the GPL, Richard Stallman. Future revisions of the GPL now lies in the hands of a bureaucracy that may not be a trustworthy guardian of user freedom.%0a%3c %0a%3c As for the Linux kernel, it has been subverted by [[linux/flaws|corporate donors]] who have proven themselves hostile towards user freedom.%0a%3c %0a%3c In general, there is a shift now towards permissive licenses, and this trend will only continue.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> The GPL became very popular because of the success of two of its flagship products: the Linux kernel and the GNU C Compiler (gcc). As a result, the GPL became the most popular free software license.%0a> %0a> However, times are rapidly changing. The FSF has replaced Richard Stallman, its original founder and the creator behind the GPL. The future revision and definition of the GPL now lies in the hands of a bureaucracy that may not be a trustworthy guardian of user freedom.%0a> %0a> As for the Linux kernel, it has been subverted by [[linux/flaws|corporate donors]] who are hostile towards user freedom.%0a> %0a68c68%0a%3c The GPL is designed to force the control of the software into the hands of the copyleft community. On the other hand, permissively-licensed code can be taken by any users of any political ideology. It makes no distinction between copyleft or copyright parties. It is neutral and can unite both factions.%0a---%0a> The GPL forces the software to forever remain in the hands of the copyleft community, whereas permissively-licensed code can be taken by any users, whether they are supporters of copyleft or copyright. It is truly neutral.%0a
host:1615735113=198.251.81.119
author:1615734243=jrmu
diff:1615734243:1615733939:=26,27c26,27%0a%3c With the GPL, you are forced to surrender ownership rights over your source code. As a result, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. The FSF claims you can sell free software, but in practice, the price of the vast majority of GPL software is zero.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> With the GPL, you are forced to surrender ownership rights over the source code. As a result, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. The FSF claims you can sell free software, but in practice, the price of the vast majority of GPL software is zero.%0a> %0a30,31c30,31%0a%3c Free protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because third party developers have no financial incentive to improve it. They have moved on to despotic app stores and tyrannical networks.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Free protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because third party developers have no financial incentive to improve it. They have moved on to proprietary app stores and unfree social networks.%0a> %0a34c34%0a%3c Social networks like Facebook and Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem of apps and advertisers. In fact, even operating systems like Microsoft Windows succeed mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem of hardware and software partners. Without strong, health relations with third parties, IRCNow will most remain too small and weak to make a positive impact on user freedom.%0a---%0a> Social networks like Facebook, Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem of apps and advertisers. In fact, even operating systems like Microsoft Windows succeed mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem of hardware and software partners. Without a strong, health relation with third parties, IRCNow will most remain too small and weak to make a positive impact on user freedom.%0a
host:1615734243=198.251.81.119
author:1615733939=jrmu
diff:1615733939:1615733664:=26c26%0a%3c With the GPL, you are forced to surrender ownership rights over the source code. As a result, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. The FSF claims you can sell free software, but in practice, the price of the vast majority of GPL software is zero.%0a---%0a> With the GPL, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. When users are forced to give away all their source code, they cannot charge more than the cost of a download for software. So while the FSF claims you can sell free software, in practice, the price of the vast majority of GPL software is zero.%0a
host:1615733939=198.251.81.119
author:1615733664=jrmu
diff:1615733664:1615733206:=18,19c18,19%0a%3c If the user refuses to give up ownership of his modified work, a lawyer can sue him in a court of law! This is the unhappy condition of GPL users.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> If the user refuses to give up ownership of his modified work, a lawyer can sue him in a court of law! This is the unhappy condition of users of GPL software.%0a> %0a28,32c28,32%0a%3c Very few developers can afford to work full-time on a project by surviving on donations. Many users are forced to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable to earn a living. So instead of building up a healthy ecosystem around free protocols and free software, the GPL has forced these developers to instead build apps for non-free protocols and non-free software.%0a%3c %0a%3c Free protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because third party developers have no financial incentive to improve it. They have moved on to proprietary app stores and unfree social networks.%0a%3c %0a%3c Although we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and a love for humanity, we must admit that the majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. The restrictions of the GPL make it very difficult for developers to earn an income. And without a vibrant third party ecosystem of bots, games, clients, and services, a network isn't very interesting. It will struggle to get users.%0a---%0a> Very few developers can afford to work full-time on a project that earns them almost nothing. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for real work. So instead of building up a healthy ecosystem around free protocols and free software, these developers instead choose to build apps for non-free protocols and non-free software.%0a> %0a> Free protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because third party developers have no financial incentive to improve it. They have moved on to proprietary app stores, unfree social networks, proprietary operating systems.%0a> %0a> Although we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and a love for humanity, we must admit that the majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. The restrictions of the GPL make it very difficult for developers to earn an income. And without a third party ecosystem, a network will struggle to get users.%0a
host:1615733664=198.251.81.119
author:1615733206=jrmu
diff:1615733206:1615733011:=22,23c22,23%0a%3c Just as every man has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns, every user has the right to own the software he has written. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Just as every man has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns, every user has the right to own the software he has written. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases. He should not have to consult the FSF or its lawyers, or resort to special license exceptions for permission.%0a> %0a47,48d46%0a%3c %0a%3c  He should not have to consult the FSF or its lawyers for permission. He should not have to resort to special license exceptions.%0a
host:1615733206=198.251.81.119
author:1615733011=jrmu
diff:1615733011:1615732699:=22,23c22,23%0a%3c Just as every man has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns, every user has the right to own the software he has written. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases. He should not have to consult the FSF or its lawyers, or resort to special license exceptions for permission.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Just as every man has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns, every user has the right to own the software he has written. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases. He should not have to consult the FSF or its lawyers for permission.%0a> %0a28,30c28,30%0a%3c Very few developers can afford to work full-time on a project that earns them almost nothing. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for real work. So instead of building up a healthy ecosystem around free protocols and free software, these developers instead choose to build apps for non-free protocols and non-free software.%0a%3c %0a%3c Free protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because third party developers have no financial incentive to improve it. They have moved on to proprietary app stores, unfree social networks, proprietary operating systems.%0a---%0a> Very few developers can afford to work full-time on a project that earns them almost nothing. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for real work. So instead of building up a healthy ecosystem around free protocols and free software, these developers instead choose to build apps around non-free protocols.%0a> %0a> Free protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because there is no financial incentive to improve it.%0a
host:1615733011=198.251.81.119
author:1615732699=jrmu
diff:1615732699:1615732170:=22c22%0a%3c Just as every man has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns, every user has the right to own the software he has written. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases. He should not have to consult the FSF or its lawyers for permission.%0a---%0a> Every user has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns and to own the software that he has written. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases. He should not have to consult the FSF or its lawyers for permission. Every user is my equal, and the equal of every other user.%0a
host:1615732699=198.251.81.119
author:1615732170=jrmu
diff:1615732170:1615732111:=22a23,53%0a> %0a> !! BSD Free Labor%0a> %0a> The newbie to the free software world installs new software for a while, learns to configure and use it. He then finds bugs and requests new features, learns to code, and begins to contribute to the community. After a few years of experience, he begins to sell part of his work, all the while building up the flourishing ecosystem around the free code base. He hires other newbies to help him. This is free labor from free users---the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way for all, gives hope to all, and improves the condition of all.%0a> %0a> Property is the fruit of labor. Property exerts a positive force on our ecosystem. It is a just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Don't let the one without intellectual property try to seize and destroy the property of another. Let him labor diligently and build a code base for himself, and rest assured that his own shall be safe from violence when built. Wanting to code is so rare a merit that it should be encouraged.%0a> %0a> Users contributing code is the great source from which all software ecosystems are built upon.%0a> No society can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its users. The great majority must labor at something productive.%0a> %0a> If at any time all labour should cease, and all existing provisions be equally divided among the people, at the end of a single year there could scarcely be one human being left alive---all would have perished by want of subsistence.%0a> %0a> %0a> %0a> %0a> Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship.%0a> %0a> %0a> Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.%0a> %0a> Upon this subject, the habits of our whole species fall into three great classes---useful labour, useless labour and idleness. Of these the first only is meritorious; and to it all the products of labour rightfully belong; but the two latter, while they exist, are heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a large portion of it's just rights. The only remedy for this is to, as far as possible, drive useless labour and idleness out of existence.%0a> %0a> Work, work, work, is the main thing.%0a> %0a> I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.%0a> %0a> ...half finished work generally proves to be labor lost." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Communication to the People of Sangamon County" (March 9, 1832), p. 5.%0a> %0a> And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.%0a> %0a> ...the working men are the basis of all governments, for the plain reason that they are the most numerous...%0a
host:1615732170=198.251.81.119
author:1615732111=jrmu
diff:1615732111:1615728870:=23,53d22%0a%3c %0a%3c !! BSD Free Labor%0a%3c %0a%3c The newbie to the free software world installs new software for a while, learns to configure and use it. He then finds bugs and requests new features, learns to code, and begins to contribute to the community. After a few years of experience, he begins to sell part of his work, all the while building up the flourishing ecosystem around the free code base. He hires other newbies to help him. This is free labor from free users---the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way for all, gives hope to all, and improves the condition of all.%0a%3c %0a%3c Property is the fruit of labor. Property exerts a positive force on our ecosystem. It is a just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Don't let the one without intellectual property try to seize and destroy the property of another. Let him labor diligently and build a code base for himself, and rest assured that his own shall be safe from violence when built. Wanting to code is so rare a merit that it should be encouraged.%0a%3c %0a%3c Users contributing code is the great source from which all software ecosystems are built upon.%0a%3c No society can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its users. The great majority must labor at something productive.%0a%3c %0a%3c If at any time all labour should cease, and all existing provisions be equally divided among the people, at the end of a single year there could scarcely be one human being left alive---all would have perished by want of subsistence.%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship.%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.%0a%3c %0a%3c Upon this subject, the habits of our whole species fall into three great classes---useful labour, useless labour and idleness. Of these the first only is meritorious; and to it all the products of labour rightfully belong; but the two latter, while they exist, are heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a large portion of it's just rights. The only remedy for this is to, as far as possible, drive useless labour and idleness out of existence.%0a%3c %0a%3c Work, work, work, is the main thing.%0a%3c %0a%3c I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.%0a%3c %0a%3c ...half finished work generally proves to be labor lost." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Communication to the People of Sangamon County" (March 9, 1832), p. 5.%0a%3c %0a%3c And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.%0a%3c %0a%3c ...the working men are the basis of all governments, for the plain reason that they are the most numerous...%0a
host:1615732111=198.251.81.119
author:1615728870=jrmu
diff:1615728870:1615727660:=22c22,34%0a%3c Every user has the right to eat the bread his own hand earns and to own the software that he has written. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases. He should not have to consult the FSF or its lawyers for permission. Every user is my equal, and the equal of every other user.%0a---%0a> !! BSD Provides Hope%0a> %0a> GPL advocates declare their users are better off than those of BSD because their code has more features. How little they understand! With BSD users, there is hope -- there is the prospect of ownership. There is no permanent class of newbies among us. Ten years ago, I was a mere newbie. But the newbie of yesterday learns to code today and writes code for himself tomorrow. Advancement -- studying the source and writing new code -- is the natural order in a society of equals. %0a> %0a> Free labor and the ownership of property provides the inspiration of hope. Demanding users to surrender all their property rights offers them no hope. The power of hope as an incentive to encourage users to learn to code, to contribute to the ecosystem, and to make them happy is powerful and wonderful.%0a> %0a> How many hours have you spent scolding users about the need for software freedom? How many GPL applications did you get them to install? If you promise to give them ownership rights and pay them for their work, they will install twice the number. You substitute scolding with hope. You have given up the GPL system and adopted free software.%0a> %0a> !!%0a> %0a> Every user has a right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a> %0a> %0a
host:1615728870=198.251.81.119
author:1615727660=jrmu
diff:1615727660:1615727604:=28c28%0a%3c How many hours have you spent scolding users about the need for software freedom? How many GPL applications did you get them to install? If you promise to give them ownership rights and pay them for their work, they will install twice the number. You substitute scolding with hope. You have given up the GPL system and adopted free software.%0a---%0a> How many hours have you spent scolding users about the need for software freedom? How many GPL applications did you get him to install? If you promise to give him ownership rights and pay him for the work, he will install twice the number of BSD applications. You substitute scolding with hope. You have given up the GPL system and adopted free software.%0a
host:1615727660=198.251.81.119
author:1615727604=jrmu
diff:1615727604:1615727427:=22,23c22,23%0a%3c !! BSD Provides Hope%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! GPL Deprives Hope%0a> %0a28c28%0a%3c How many hours have you spent scolding users about the need for software freedom? How many GPL applications did you get him to install? If you promise to give him ownership rights and pay him for the work, he will install twice the number of BSD applications. You substitute scolding with hope. You have given up the GPL system and adopted free software.%0a---%0a> How many hours have you spent scolding users about the need for software freedom? How many software applications did you get them to install? If you promise to pay him pay for the work and to give him ownership rights, he will install twice the number. You substitute scolding with hope. You have given up the GPL system and adopted free software.%0a
host:1615727604=198.251.81.119
author:1615727427=jrmu
diff:1615727427:1615727343:=28,30c28,30%0a%3c How many hours have you spent scolding users about the need for software freedom? How many software applications did you get them to install? If you promise to pay him pay for the work and to give him ownership rights, he will install twice the number. You substitute scolding with hope. You have given up the GPL system and adopted free software.%0a%3c %0a%3c !!%0a---%0a> How many hours have you spent scolding users about the need for software freedom? How many software applications did you get them to install? If you promise to pay him pay for the work and to give him ownership rights, you will get. You substitute moralizing with hope. You have given up the GPL system and adopted free software.%0a> %0a> %0a
host:1615727427=198.251.81.119
author:1615727343=jrmu
diff:1615727343:1615725810:=3,4c3,4%0a%3c There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html|GNU General Public License]] (the GPL). Unfortunately, these licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html|GNU General Public License]] (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a> %0a11a12,13%0a> Every user has a right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a> %0a18,34c20,22%0a%3c If the user refuses to give up ownership of his modified work, a lawyer can sue him in a court of law! This is the unhappy condition of users of GPL software.%0a%3c %0a%3c We would, of course, be happy for the user to share his work with us under a free license. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user should have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! GPL Deprives Hope%0a%3c %0a%3c GPL advocates declare their users are better off than those of BSD because their code has more features. How little they understand! With BSD users, there is hope -- there is the prospect of ownership. There is no permanent class of newbies among us. Ten years ago, I was a mere newbie. But the newbie of yesterday learns to code today and writes code for himself tomorrow. Advancement -- studying the source and writing new code -- is the natural order in a society of equals. %0a%3c %0a%3c Free labor and the ownership of property provides the inspiration of hope. Demanding users to surrender all their property rights offers them no hope. The power of hope as an incentive to encourage users to learn to code, to contribute to the ecosystem, and to make them happy is powerful and wonderful.%0a%3c %0a%3c How many hours have you spent scolding users about the need for software freedom? How many software applications did you get them to install? If you promise to pay him pay for the work and to give him ownership rights, you will get. You substitute moralizing with hope. You have given up the GPL system and adopted free software.%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c Every user has a right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a---%0a> If the user refuses to share the software, a lawyer can sue the user in a court of law!%0a> %0a> We would, of course, be happy for the user to share the work with us under a free license. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user should have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a
host:1615727343=198.251.81.119
author:1615725810=jrmu
diff:1615725810:1615724672:=7,12c7,12%0a%3c In a free society, users should have the economic freedom to own property. To create a truly free society, users should have:%0a%3c %0a%3c # The freedom to build and advertise their business%0a%3c # The freedom to profit from improvements they add to a free ecosystem%0a%3c %0a%3c Every user has a right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a---%0a> In a free society, users should have the economic freedom to own property. To create a truly free network network, users should have:%0a> %0a> # The freedom to build and advertise their business on IRCNow%0a> # The freedom to profit from improvements they make to the IRCNow ecosystem%0a> %0a> Every user has a right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases.%0a
host:1615725810=198.251.81.119
author:1615724672=jrmu
diff:1615724672:1615718071:=7c7%0a%3c In a free society, users should have the economic freedom to own property. To create a truly free network network, users should have:%0a---%0a> In a free society, users should have the economic freedom to own property. For IRCNow to be a truly free network network, users should have:%0a
host:1615724672=198.251.81.119
author:1615718071=jrmu
diff:1615718071:1615717840:=26,30c26,28%0a%3c With the GPL, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. When users are forced to give away all their source code, they cannot charge more than the cost of a download for software. So while the FSF claims you can sell free software, in practice, the price of the vast majority of GPL software is zero.%0a%3c %0a%3c Very few developers can afford to work full-time on a project that earns them almost nothing. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for real work. So instead of building up a healthy ecosystem around free protocols and free software, these developers instead choose to build apps around non-free protocols.%0a%3c %0a%3c Free protocols like IRC are almost abandoned today because there is no financial incentive to improve it.%0a---%0a> With the GPL, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. When users are forced to give away all their source code, they cannot charge others more than the cost of a download. So while the FSF claims you can sell free software, in practice, the price of the vast majority of GPL software is zero.%0a> %0a> Very few developers can afford to work full-time on a project that earns them almost nothing. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for real work. So instead of building up the ecosystem for free protocols and free software, they work entirely on proprietary, closed software. Free protocols like IRC are almost dead today because the GPL has destroyed most of the financial incentive to improve it.%0a
host:1615718071=198.251.81.119
author:1615717840=jrmu
diff:1615717840:1615717795:=22c22%0a%3c We would, of course, be happy for the user to share the work with us under a free license. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user should have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a---%0a> We would, of course, be happy for the user to share the work with us under a free license. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate and a lawyer to litigate. The user should have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a
host:1615717840=198.251.81.119
author:1615717795=jrmu
diff:1615717795:1615717425:=12,15c12,15%0a%3c Every user has a right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases.%0a%3c %0a%3c '''The GPL, however, takes away the user's ownership rights''':%0a%3c %0a---%0a> If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases. Every user should be able to enjoy the fruits of his own labor.%0a> %0a> The GPL, however, takes away these essential user rights. '''The GPL takes away the user's ownership rights''':%0a> %0a18,22c18,20%0a%3c # If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, '''the user must forfeit ownership of his patents'''.%0a%3c %0a%3c If the user refuses to share the software, a lawyer can sue the user in a court of law!%0a%3c %0a%3c We would, of course, be happy for the user to share the work with us under a free license. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate and a lawyer to litigate. The user should have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a---%0a> # If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, '''the user must forfeit ownership of the patents'''.%0a> %0a> We would, of course, be happy for the user to share the work with us under a free license. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user must have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a
host:1615717795=198.251.81.119
author:1615717425=jrmu
diff:1615717425:1615717368:=3c3%0a%3c There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html|GNU General Public License]] (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a---%0a> There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the GNU General Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a
host:1615717425=198.251.81.119
author:1615717368=jrmu
diff:1615717368:1615717310:=
host:1615717368=198.251.81.119
author:1615717310=jrmu
diff:1615717310:1615717268:=67,68d66%0a%3c %0a%3c !! GPL discourages export%0a
host:1615717310=198.251.81.119
author:1615717268=jrmu
diff:1615717268:1615717143:=10a11%0a> # The freedom to use IRCNow code to create an alternative, competing network%0a
host:1615717268=198.251.81.119
author:1615717143=jrmu
diff:1615717143:1615717073:=7c7%0a%3c In a free society, users should have the economic freedom to own property. For IRCNow to be a truly free network network, users should have:%0a---%0a> In a free society, users should have the freedom to own property. For IRCNow to be a truly free network network, users should have:%0a
host:1615717143=198.251.81.119
author:1615717073=jrmu
diff:1615717073:1615716410:=9,10c9,10%0a%3c # The freedom to build and advertise their business on IRCNow%0a%3c # The freedom to profit from improvements they make to the IRCNow ecosystem%0a---%0a> # The freedom to build their businesses on the network%0a> # The freedom to profit from improvements they make to art and code%0a13,19c13,17%0a%3c If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases. Every user should be able to enjoy the fruits of his own labor.%0a%3c %0a%3c The GPL, however, takes away these essential user rights. '''The GPL takes away the user's ownership rights''':%0a%3c %0a%3c # If GPL source code is required to compile software, '''the user loses ownership of the entire program'''.%0a%3c # If a program statically links to a GPL library, '''the user loses ownership of the entire program'''.%0a%3c # If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, '''the user must forfeit ownership of the patents'''.%0a---%0a> Under the GPL, all these freedoms are restricted because '''the GPL takes away the user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases. The GPL, however, requires that:%0a> %0a> # If GPL source code is required to compile software, the user loses ownership of the entire program.%0a> # If a program statically links to a GPL library, the user loses ownership of the entire program.%0a> # If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, the user must forfeit ownership of the patents.%0a
host:1615717073=198.251.81.119
author:1615716410=jrmu
diff:1615716410:1615716151:=3,4c3,4%0a%3c There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the GNU General Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the GNU General Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they frequently restrict what users can do with the software.%0a> %0a7,11c7,11%0a%3c In a free society, users should have the freedom to own property. For IRCNow to be a truly free network network, users should have:%0a%3c %0a%3c # The freedom to build their businesses on the network%0a%3c # The freedom to profit from improvements they make to art and code%0a%3c # The freedom to use IRCNow code to create an alternative, competing network%0a---%0a> When discussing user freedom, we must not neglect the important freedom of property ownership. Users should have:%0a> %0a> # The freedom to build their businesses%0a> # The freedom to profit from improvements they make to the arts and science%0a> # The freedom to fork code to run an alternative, competing network%0a
host:1615716410=198.251.81.119
author:1615716151=jrmu
diff:1615716151:1615714661:=
host:1615716151=198.251.81.119
author:1615714661=jrmu
diff:1615714661:1615714232:=9,10c9,10%0a%3c # The freedom to build their businesses%0a%3c # The freedom to profit from improvements they make to the arts and science%0a---%0a> # The freedom to build a business%0a> # The freedom to create and sell improvements to art and science%0a13c13%0a%3c Under the GPL, all these freedoms are restricted because '''the GPL takes away the user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases. The GPL, however, requires that:%0a---%0a> In all these areas, '''the GPL takes away the user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases. The GPL, however, requires that:%0a
host:1615714661=198.251.81.119
author:1615714232=jrmu
diff:1615714232:1615714063:=21,22c21,22%0a%3c !! GPL Discourages 3rd Party Developers%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! Economic Ownership%0a> %0a31,32c31,32%0a%3c !! GPL Encourages Double Standards%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! Double Standards%0a> %0a43,44c43,44%0a%3c !! GPL Relies on Corporate Funding%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! Corporate Donations%0a> %0a51,52c51,52%0a%3c !! GPL is Declining%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! GPL is on the decline%0a> %0a59,60c59,60%0a%3c !! GPL isn't Neutral%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! Neutrality%0a> %0a63c63%0a%3c !! GPL Doesn't Stop Silicon Valley%0a---%0a> !! Licenses Don't Solve Everything%0a
host:1615714232=198.251.81.119
author:1615714063=jrmu
diff:1615714063:1615713504:=23,25c23%0a%3c With the GPL, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. When users are forced to give away all their source code, they cannot charge others more than the cost of a download. So while the FSF claims you can sell free software, in practice, the price of the vast majority of GPL software is zero.%0a%3c %0a%3c Very few developers can afford to work full-time on a project that earns them almost nothing. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for real work. So instead of building up the ecosystem for free protocols and free software, they work entirely on proprietary, closed software. Free protocols like IRC are almost dead today because the GPL has destroyed most of the financial incentive to improve it.%0a---%0a> With the GPL, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. When users are forced to give all their source code, they have no ability to sell software and no ability to earn an income. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for earning money. This is one major reason why free software and free protocols are neglected and dying today.%0a
host:1615714063=198.251.81.119
author:1615713504=jrmu
diff:1615713504:1615713490:=13c13%0a%3c In all these areas, '''the GPL takes away the user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases. The GPL, however, requires that:%0a---%0a> In all these areas, '''the GPL takes away a user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases. The GPL, however, requires that:%0a
host:1615713504=198.251.81.119
author:1615713490=jrmu
diff:1615713490:1615713431:=9,11c9,11%0a%3c # The freedom to build a business%0a%3c # The freedom to create and sell improvements to art and science%0a%3c # The freedom to fork code to run an alternative, competing network%0a---%0a> # The freedom to build a business around our works%0a> # The freedom to sell new works of art and science based on our works%0a> # The freedom to fork our code to run an alternative, competing network%0a
host:1615713490=198.251.81.119
author:1615713431=jrmu
diff:1615713431:1615713245:=3c3%0a%3c There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most popular one is the GNU General Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they frequently restrict what users can do with the software.%0a---%0a> There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most famous one is the GNU General Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they frequently restrict what users can do with the software.%0a
host:1615713431=198.251.81.119
author:1615713245=jrmu
diff:1615713245:1615707107:=27c27%0a%3c Social networks like Facebook, Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem of apps and advertisers. In fact, even operating systems like Microsoft Windows succeed mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem of hardware and software partners. Without a strong, health relation with third parties, IRCNow will most remain too small and weak to make a positive impact on user freedom.%0a---%0a> Social networks like Facebook, Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem of apps and advertisers. In fact, even traditional software like Microsoft Windows succeeds mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem of hardware and software partners. Without a strong, health relation with third parties, IRCNow will most remain too small and weak to make a positive impact on user freedom.%0a
host:1615713245=198.251.81.119
author:1615707107=jrmu
diff:1615707107:1615707010:=41,43c41%0a%3c !! Corporate Donations%0a%3c %0a%3c !! GPL Restricts Code Reuse%0a---%0a> !!%0a
host:1615707107=198.251.81.119
author:1615707010=jrmu
diff:1615707010:1615706939:=25c25%0a%3c Although we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and a love for humanity, we must admit that the majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. The restrictions of the GPL make it very difficult for developers to earn an income. And without a third party ecosystem, a network will struggle to get users.%0a---%0a> Although we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and a love for humanity, we must be admit that the majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. The restrictions of the GPL make it very difficult for developers to earn an income. And without a third party ecosystem, a network will struggle to get users.%0a
host:1615707010=198.251.81.119
author:1615706939=jrmu
diff:1615706939:1615706871:=47c47%0a%3c !! GPL is on the decline%0a---%0a> !! Why is the GPL so popular?%0a
host:1615706939=198.251.81.119
author:1615706871=jrmu
diff:1615706871:1615706852:=30,31d29%0a%3c %0a%3c !!! Dual Licensing%0a
host:1615706871=198.251.81.119
author:1615706852=jrmu
diff:1615706852:1615706681:=33,37c33,35%0a%3c As one example, the developers of GPL software can resort to dual licensing. They will sell two versions of their software: one that is free, where you can do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed. Examples include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a%3c %0a%3c This creates a dual class society. Rich corporations can get free software, but poor users are forced to use the GPL.%0a%3c %0a%3c This isn't what IRCNow stands for. In our declaration of network independence, we say that '''all users are created equal'''. The rich and poor alike should have the same access to the code on our network.%0a---%0a> As one example, the developers of GPL software can resort to dual licensing. They will sell two versions of their software: one that is free, where you can do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed. Examples include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt. If a rich corporation can afford to pay millions of dollars to Oracle, they can get free software. But poor users are forced to use the GPL version.%0a> %0a> This creates a dual class society. Rich corporations get free software but poor users are stuck with the GPL.%0a
host:1615706852=198.251.81.119
author:1615706681=jrmu
diff:1615706681:1615706486:=31,35c31,35%0a%3c Since the GPL makes it almost impossible to sell software at a profit, businesses often resort to legal tricks to get around the restrictions of the GPL. Although they do not violate the letter of the GPL, they certainly violate the spirit of equality and freedom that the GPL claims to stand for. These serious double standards are often ignored by the copyleft community.%0a%3c %0a%3c As one example, the developers of GPL software can resort to dual licensing. They will sell two versions of their software: one that is free, where you can do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed. Examples include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt. If a rich corporation can afford to pay millions of dollars to Oracle, they can get free software. But poor users are forced to use the GPL version.%0a%3c %0a%3c This creates a dual class society. Rich corporations get free software but poor users are stuck with the GPL.%0a---%0a> Since the GPL makes it almost impossible to sell software at a profit, businesses often resort to legal tricks to get around the restrictions of the GPL. These restrictions often violate the spirit of the GPL license by restricting the free resharing of code and information. These are serious double standards often ignored by the copyleft community.%0a> %0a> For example, developers of GPL software sometimes resort to dual licensing. They will sell two versions of their software: one that is free, which you can do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed. Examples include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a> %0a> This creates a dual class society. Rich corporations who can pay heavy fees are allowed to buy free software, but poor users are forced to use GPL software.%0a
host:1615706681=198.251.81.119
author:1615706486=jrmu
diff:1615706486:1615706259:=25,27c25,27%0a%3c Although we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and a love for humanity, we must be admit that the majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. The restrictions of the GPL make it very difficult for developers to earn an income. And without a third party ecosystem, a network will struggle to get users.%0a%3c %0a%3c Social networks like Facebook, Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem of apps and advertisers. In fact, even traditional software like Microsoft Windows succeeds mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem of hardware and software partners. Without a strong, health relation with third parties, IRCNow will most remain too small and weak to make a positive impact on user freedom.%0a---%0a> Although we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and love of humanity, we must be admit that the vast majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. And without a third party ecosystem, a network will struggle to get users.%0a> %0a> Social networks like Facebook, Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem. In fact, even traditional software like Microsoft Windows succeeds mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem. Without a strong third party ecosystem and healthy relations with developers, IRCNow will most likely remain too small and weak to make an impact on user freedom.%0a
host:1615706486=198.251.81.119
author:1615706259=jrmu
diff:1615706259:1615706107:=13c13%0a%3c In all these areas, '''the GPL takes away a user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it as he pleases. The GPL, however, requires that:%0a---%0a> In all these areas, '''the GPL takes away a user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases. The GPL, however, requires that:%0a
host:1615706259=198.251.81.119
author:1615706107=jrmu
diff:1615706107:1615705804:=31,35c31%0a%3c Since the GPL makes it almost impossible to sell software at a profit, businesses often resort to legal tricks to get around the restrictions of the GPL. These restrictions often violate the spirit of the GPL license by restricting the free resharing of code and information. These are serious double standards often ignored by the copyleft community.%0a%3c %0a%3c For example, developers of GPL software sometimes resort to dual licensing. They will sell two versions of their software: one that is free, which you can do whatever you want with, and another that is GPL licensed. Examples include NetBeans, MySQL, Asterisk, BerkeleyDB, Magnolia CMS, wolfSSL, and Qt.%0a%3c %0a%3c This creates a dual class society. Rich corporations who can pay heavy fees are allowed to buy free software, but poor users are forced to use GPL software.%0a---%0a> Businesses that are built around GPL software must instead find other ways to make money, all of which go against the spirit of free resharing code and information. For example, some developers of GPL software will resort to dual licensing -- selling fully closed and open source versions of their software. This effectively creates a dual class society. Rich corporations who can afford to buy free software and poor users who are forced to use GPL software.%0a
host:1615706107=198.251.81.119
author:1615705804=jrmu
diff:1615705804:1615705690:=27c27%0a%3c Social networks like Facebook, Discord succeed in large part thanks to their strong third party ecosystem. In fact, even traditional software like Microsoft Windows succeeds mostly due to their enormous third party ecosystem. Without a strong third party ecosystem and healthy relations with developers, IRCNow will most likely remain too small and weak to make an impact on user freedom.%0a---%0a> If you take a look at large social networks like Facebook, Discord, you will see they succeeded in large part due to their third party ecosystem.%0a
host:1615705804=198.251.81.119
author:1615705690=jrmu
diff:1615705690:1615705366:=23c23%0a%3c With the GPL, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. When users are forced to give all their source code, they have no ability to sell software and no ability to earn an income. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for earning money. This is one major reason why free software and free protocols are neglected and dying today.%0a---%0a> With the GPL, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. When users are forced to give all source code, they have no ability to sell software and no ability to earn an income. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for earning money. This is one major reason why free software and free protocols are neglected and dying today.%0a
host:1615705690=198.251.81.119
author:1615705366=jrmu
diff:1615705366:1615704395:=7,8c7,8%0a%3c When discussing user freedom, we must not neglect the important freedom of property ownership. Users should have:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> When discussing user freedom, we must not neglect the important economic freedom of property ownership. Users should have:%0a> %0a10,34c10,22%0a%3c # The freedom to sell new works of art and science based on our works%0a%3c # The freedom to fork our code to run an alternative, competing network%0a%3c %0a%3c In all these areas, '''the GPL takes away a user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases. The GPL, however, requires that:%0a%3c %0a%3c # If GPL source code is required to compile software, the user loses ownership of the entire program.%0a%3c # If a program statically links to a GPL library, the user loses ownership of the entire program.%0a%3c # If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, the user must forfeit ownership of the patents.%0a%3c %0a%3c We would, of course, be happy for the user to share the work with us under a free license. But this decision should be left for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user must have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Economic Ownership%0a%3c %0a%3c With the GPL, it becomes practically impossible to sell software for a living. When users are forced to give all source code, they have no ability to sell software and no ability to earn an income. This forces many users to treat GPL software as a hobby -- something done for fun, but unsuitable for earning money. This is one major reason why free software and free protocols are neglected and dying today.%0a%3c %0a%3c Although we would love for users to contribute to IRCNow out of a spirit of generosity and love of humanity, we must be admit that the vast majority of third party developers will only contribute if they believe they can earn money. And without a third party ecosystem, a network will struggle to get users.%0a%3c %0a%3c If you take a look at large social networks like Facebook, Discord, you will see they succeeded in large part due to their third party ecosystem.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Double Standards%0a%3c %0a%3c Businesses that are built around GPL software must instead find other ways to make money, all of which go against the spirit of free resharing code and information. For example, some developers of GPL software will resort to dual licensing -- selling fully closed and open source versions of their software. This effectively creates a dual class society. Rich corporations who can afford to buy free software and poor users who are forced to use GPL software.%0a%3c %0a%3c !!%0a%3c %0a---%0a> # The freedom to create their own works of art and science%0a> # The freedom to fork and create alternative, competing networks%0a> %0a> '''The GPL takes away a user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a> %0a> We would, of course, be happy for the user to share the work with us; but that should be left as a decision for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user must have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a> %0a> GPL Restrictions:%0a> %0a> # You lose ownership of your work%0a> # If GPL source code is required to compile software, the lose ownership of the entire program. If a program statically links to a GPL library, you lose ownership of the entire program.%0a> # If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, you must forfeit ownership of the patents.%0a> %0a37a26,31%0a> %0a> !! True User Freedom%0a> %0a> The GPL falls quite short of the freedom of the public domain. For one, users are unable to sell the software. As a result, this forces many users to treat the software as a hobby, something for fun, but unsuitable for earning money.%0a> %0a> Businesses that are built around GPL software must instead find other ways to make money, all of which go against the spirit of free resharing code and information. For example, some developers of GPL software will resort to dual licensing -- selling fully closed and open source versions of their software. This effectively creates a dual class society. Rich corporations who can afford to buy free software and poor users who are forced to use GPL software.%0a
host:1615705366=198.251.81.119
author:1615704395=jrmu
diff:1615704395:1615704381:=
host:1615704395=198.251.81.119
author:1615704381=jrmu
diff:1615704381:1615704180:=
host:1615704381=198.251.81.119
author:1615704180=jrmu
diff:1615704180:1615703449:=3,18c3,14%0a%3c There are a set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most famous one is the GNU General Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they frequently restrict what users can do with the software.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! GPL Restricts User Ownership%0a%3c %0a%3c When discussing user freedom, we must not neglect the important economic freedom of property ownership. Users should have:%0a%3c %0a%3c # The freedom to build a business around our works%0a%3c # The freedom to create their own works of art and science%0a%3c # The freedom to fork and create alternative, competing networks%0a%3c %0a%3c '''The GPL takes away a user's ownership rights'''. If a user spends his time, money, and labor to create a new work, he should be entitled to use it, share it, or sell it however he pleases.%0a%3c %0a%3c We would, of course, be happy for the user to share the work with us; but that should be left as a decision for the user to make, not for a license to dictate. The user must have the freedom to make his own decisions with his own property.%0a%3c %0a%3c GPL Restrictions:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! The Public Domain%0a> %0a> We want to give users the freedom to take our works to build a business around them; to create their own works of art and science; and to fork and create alternative, competing networks.%0a> %0a> !! Why not GPL?%0a> %0a> There are another set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most famous one is the GNU General Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a> %0a> The GPL is actually a strict copyright license that takes away a user's exclusive ownership rights. If you spend your time, money, and labor to create a new work, you should be entitled to use it as you please. However, with copyleft works, for any modifications you make, you are legally required to give up exclusive ownership rights by sharing those changes.%0a> %0a> Key Restrictions:%0a> %0a20,21c16,17%0a%3c # If GPL source code is required to compile software, the lose ownership of the entire program. If a program statically links to a GPL library, you lose ownership of the entire program.%0a%3c # If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, you must forfeit ownership of the patents.%0a---%0a> # If GPL source code is required to compile software, the entire program must be GPL. If a program statically links to a GPL library, the entire program must be GPL.%0a> # If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, it must be free for everyone to reuse.%0a
host:1615704180=198.251.81.119
author:1615703449=jrmu
diff:1615703449:1615702488:=1,2d0%0a%3c (:title The GPL Isn't Fully Free:)%0a%3c %0a5a4,11%0a> %0a> Long before the words "open source" or "free software" were ever used, we had '''the public domain'''. Creative works in the public domain have no legal owner; they belong to the public.%0a> %0a> What's included in the public domain? The paintings of Leonardo da Vinci, the writings of Shakespeare, and the formulas of Isaac Newton are just a few of the works that covered by the public domain. You are free to copy these works, to quote them, to parody them, and to build new works of art and science around them. You are free to sell these copies and make new creations around them. There are no owners; their works belong to the public. You are free to do whatever you want with them.%0a> %0a> Imagine what life would be like if every time you wanted to follow a cooking recipe or solve a math equation, you had to sign an end-user license agreement. Life would be far less free. It's a good thing that cooking recipes and math formulas are usually in the public domain.%0a> %0a> This is how software should work, too. We want you, the end user and programmers, to have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software -- to use it, to share it, to study it, to fork it, and to combine it. The software that IRCNow provides should have no single owner; it should belong to the public. It should belong to '''We the Users'''.%0a
host:1615703449=198.251.81.119
author:1615702488=jrmu
diff:1615702488:1615701037:=2,3d1%0a%3c %0a%3c We want to give users the freedom to take our works to build a business around them; to create their own works of art and science; and to fork and create alternative, competing networks.%0a
host:1615702488=198.251.81.119
author:1615701037=jrmu
diff:1615701037:1615698770:=9,10c9,10%0a%3c This is how software should work, too. We want you, the end user and programmers, to have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software -- to use it, to share it, to study it, to fork it, and to combine it. The software that IRCNow provides should have no single owner; it should belong to the public. It should belong to '''We the Users'''.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> This is how software should work, too. We want you, the end user and programmers, to have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software -- to use it, to share it, to study it, to fork it, and to sell it. The software that IRCNow provides should have no single owner; it should belong to the public. It should belong to '''We the Users'''.%0a> %0a15,19c15,17%0a%3c The GPL is actually a strict copyright license that takes away a user's exclusive ownership rights. If you spend your time, money, and labor to create a new work, you should be entitled to use it as you please. However, with copyleft works, for any modifications you make, you are legally required to give up exclusive ownership rights by sharing those changes.%0a%3c %0a%3c Key Restrictions:%0a%3c %0a%3c # You lose ownership of your work%0a---%0a> The GPL is designed to use the copyright system against itself. If you make any modifications to a GPL program and share the, you are legally required share those changes. The GPL was designed to force you to share code back to the GPL community.%0a> %0a> # You can charge for distributing, supporting, or documenting the software, but you cannot sell the software itself.%0a23,25c21,23%0a%3c These restrictions require a very [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex license]]. There are many technical phrases that are hard to understand without a lawyer. Many users (and even lawyers) resort to reading the License FAQ instead of reading the license itself. Others contact the FSF's lawyers for their interpretation. Few users actually understand what the license itself says. This gives the FSF a lot of control over the definition of 'free software'.%0a%3c %0a%3c These restrictions make the GPL license incompatible with other software licenses. For example, ZFS uses the CDDL. This license is incompatible with the GPL, and so ZFS software cannot be legally included in the linux kernel.%0a---%0a> These restrictions sound noble but in practice, they require a very [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex license]]. This license is filled with technical phrases that are hard to understand without a lawyer. Many users (and even lawyers) often resort to reading the License FAQ instead of reading the license itself. Others contact the FSF's lawyers for their interpretation. Few users actually understand what the license itself says. This gives the FSF a lot of control over the definition of 'free software'.%0a> %0a> It also makes the GPL license incompatible with other software licenses. For example, ZFS uses the CDDL. This license is incompatible with the GPL, and so ZFS software cannot be legally included in the linux kernel.%0a
host:1615701037=198.251.81.119
author:1615698770=jrmu
diff:1615698770:1615694638:=1,10c1,12%0a%3c !! The Public Domain%0a%3c %0a%3c Long before the words "open source" or "free software" were ever used, we had '''the public domain'''. Creative works in the public domain have no legal owner; they belong to the public.%0a%3c %0a%3c What's included in the public domain? The paintings of Leonardo da Vinci, the writings of Shakespeare, and the formulas of Isaac Newton are just a few of the works that covered by the public domain. You are free to copy these works, to quote them, to parody them, and to build new works of art and science around them. You are free to sell these copies and make new creations around them. There are no owners; their works belong to the public. You are free to do whatever you want with them.%0a%3c %0a%3c Imagine what life would be like if every time you wanted to follow a cooking recipe or solve a math equation, you had to sign an end-user license agreement. Life would be far less free. It's a good thing that cooking recipes and math formulas are usually in the public domain.%0a%3c %0a%3c This is how software should work, too. We want you, the end user and programmers, to have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software -- to use it, to share it, to study it, to fork it, and to sell it. The software that IRCNow provides should have no single owner; it should belong to the public. It should belong to '''We the Users'''.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !! Why use a permissive license instead of the GPL?%0a> %0a> Long before the words "open source" or "free software" were ever used, we had '''the public domain'''. The public domain consists of every creative work that has no legal owner; it belongs to the public.%0a> %0a> What's included in the public domain? The paintings of da Vinci, the writings of Shakespeare, and the formulas of Isaac Newton are just a few of the works that covered by the public domain. You are free to copy these works, to quote them, to parody them, and to build new works of art and science around them. You are free to sell these copies and make new creations around them. There is no owner; it belongs to the public. You are free to do whatever you want with it.%0a> %0a> Imagine what life would be like if every time you wanted to follow a cooking recipe or solve a math equation, you had to sign an end-user license agreement. Life would be far less free. Fortunately, in most countries, cooking recipes and math formulas are in the public domain.%0a> %0a> This is how software should work, too. We want you, the end user and programmers, to have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software -- to use it, to share it, to study it, to fork it, and to sell it. The software IRCNow provides should have no single owner; it belongs to the public. It belongs to '''We the Users'''.%0a> %0a> The [[license/ircnow|IRCNow license]] comes closest to the public domain ideal. The user doesn't need to read any license agreements, sign any contracts, or even give the author any credit. There are no strings attached. The user is free to do whatever he wants with it.%0a> %0a13,14c15,16%0a%3c There are another set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most famous one is the GNU General Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> There are another set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most famous one is the GNU Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a> %0a18,49c20,23%0a%3c # If GPL source code is required to compile software, the entire program must be GPL. If a program statically links to a GPL library, the entire program must be GPL.%0a%3c # If there are any patents associated with software under the GPL, it must be free for everyone to reuse.%0a%3c %0a%3c These restrictions sound noble but in practice, they require a very [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|complex license]]. This license is filled with technical phrases that are hard to understand without a lawyer. Many users (and even lawyers) often resort to reading the License FAQ instead of reading the license itself. Others contact the FSF's lawyers for their interpretation. Few users actually understand what the license itself says. This gives the FSF a lot of control over the definition of 'free software'.%0a%3c %0a%3c It also makes the GPL license incompatible with other software licenses. For example, ZFS uses the CDDL. This license is incompatible with the GPL, and so ZFS software cannot be legally included in the linux kernel.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! True User Freedom%0a%3c %0a%3c The GPL falls quite short of the freedom of the public domain. For one, users are unable to sell the software. As a result, this forces many users to treat the software as a hobby, something for fun, but unsuitable for earning money.%0a%3c %0a%3c Businesses that are built around GPL software must instead find other ways to make money, all of which go against the spirit of free resharing code and information. For example, some developers of GPL software will resort to dual licensing -- selling fully closed and open source versions of their software. This effectively creates a dual class society. Rich corporations who can afford to buy free software and poor users who are forced to use GPL software.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Why is the GPL so popular?%0a%3c %0a%3c The GPL became very popular because of the success of two of its flagship products: the Linux kernel and the GNU C Compiler (gcc). As a result, the GPL became the most popular free software license.%0a%3c %0a%3c However, times are rapidly changing. The FSF has replaced Richard Stallman, its original founder and the creator behind the GPL. The future revision and definition of the GPL now lies in the hands of a bureaucracy that may not be a trustworthy guardian of user freedom.%0a%3c %0a%3c As for the Linux kernel, it has been subverted by [[linux/flaws|corporate donors]] who are hostile towards user freedom.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Neutrality%0a%3c %0a%3c The GPL forces the software to forever remain in the hands of the copyleft community, whereas permissively-licensed code can be taken by any users, whether they are supporters of copyleft or copyright. It is truly neutral.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Licenses Don't Solve Everything%0a%3c %0a%3c A huge mistake is to assume%0a%3c %0a%3c !! IRCNow License%0a%3c %0a%3c The [[license/ircnow|IRCNow license]] comes closest to the public domain ideal. The user doesn't need to read any license agreements, sign any contracts, or even give the author any credit. There are no strings attached. The user is free to do whatever he wants with it.%0a\ No newline at end of file%0a---%0a> # If GPL source is required for a program to compile, the program must be under the GPL. Linking statically to a GPL library requires a program to be under the GPL.%0a> # The GPL requires that any patents associated with GPLed software must be licensed for everyone's free use.%0a> %0a> [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|The GPL]] is a very complicated license. It is filled with technical phrases that are hard to understand without a lawyer. Due to its complexity, many users (and even lawyers) find it hard to understand. Often, users resort to looking at the License FAQ or contacting the FSF's lawyers for clarification. This gives the FSF quite a bit of control over their definition of 'free software'.%0a
host:1615698770=198.251.81.119
author:1615694638=jrmu
diff:1615694638:1615693590:=1,6c1,6%0a%3c !! Why use a permissive license instead of the GPL?%0a%3c %0a%3c Long before the words "open source" or "free software" were ever used, we had '''the public domain'''. The public domain consists of every creative work that has no legal owner; it belongs to the public.%0a%3c %0a%3c What's included in the public domain? The paintings of da Vinci, the writings of Shakespeare, and the formulas of Isaac Newton are just a few of the works that covered by the public domain. You are free to copy these works, to quote them, to parody them, and to build new works of art and science around them. You are free to sell these copies and make new creations around them. There is no owner; it belongs to the public. You are free to do whatever you want with it.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Why use a permissive license instead of the GPL?%0a> %0a> Long before the words "open source" or "free software" were ever used, we had the public domain. The public domain consists of every creative work that has no legal owner.%0a> %0a> What's included in the public domain? The paintings of da Vinci, the writings of Shakespeare, and the formulas of Isaac Newton are just a few of the works that covered by the public domain. You are free to copy these works, to quote them, to parody them, and to build new works of art and science around them. You are free to sell these copies and new creations. There is no owner; it belongs to the public. You are free to do whatever you want with it.%0a> %0a9,23c9%0a%3c This is how software should work, too. We want you, the end user and programmers, to have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software -- to use it, to share it, to study it, to fork it, and to sell it. The software IRCNow provides should have no single owner; it belongs to the public. It belongs to '''We the Users'''.%0a%3c %0a%3c The [[license/ircnow|IRCNow license]] comes closest to the public domain ideal. The user doesn't need to read any license agreements, sign any contracts, or even give the author any credit. There are no strings attached. The user is free to do whatever he wants with it.%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Why not GPL?%0a%3c %0a%3c There are another set of popular licenses collectively known as '''copyleft''' licenses. The most famous one is the GNU Public License (the GPL). These licenses are not completely free because they restrict what users can do with the software.%0a%3c %0a%3c The GPL is designed to use the copyright system against itself. If you make any modifications to a GPL program and share the, you are legally required share those changes. The GPL was designed to force you to share code back to the GPL community.%0a%3c %0a%3c # You can charge for distributing, supporting, or documenting the software, but you cannot sell the software itself.%0a%3c # If GPL source is required for a program to compile, the program must be under the GPL. Linking statically to a GPL library requires a program to be under the GPL.%0a%3c # The GPL requires that any patents associated with GPLed software must be licensed for everyone's free use.%0a%3c %0a%3c [[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html|The GPL]] is a very complicated license. It is filled with technical phrases that are hard to understand without a lawyer. Due to its complexity, many users (and even lawyers) find it hard to understand. Often, users resort to looking at the License FAQ or contacting the FSF's lawyers for clarification. This gives the FSF quite a bit of control over their definition of 'free software'.%0a---%0a> This is how software should work, too. We want you, the end user and programmers, to have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software -- to use it, to share it, to study it, to fork it, and to sell it. The software IRCNow provides should have no single owner; it belongs to the public.%0a\ No newline at end of file%0a
host:1615694638=125.224.29.248
author:1615693590=jrmu
diff:1615693590:1615693590:=1,9d0%0a%3c Why use a permissive license instead of the GPL?%0a%3c %0a%3c Long before the words "open source" or "free software" were ever used, we had the public domain. The public domain consists of every creative work that has no legal owner.%0a%3c %0a%3c What's included in the public domain? The paintings of da Vinci, the writings of Shakespeare, and the formulas of Isaac Newton are just a few of the works that covered by the public domain. You are free to copy these works, to quote them, to parody them, and to build new works of art and science around them. You are free to sell these copies and new creations. There is no owner; it belongs to the public. You are free to do whatever you want with it.%0a%3c %0a%3c Imagine what life would be like if every time you wanted to follow a cooking recipe or solve a math equation, you had to sign an end-user license agreement. Life would be far less free. Fortunately, in most countries, cooking recipes and math formulas are in the public domain.%0a%3c %0a%3c This is how software should work, too. We want you, the end user and programmers, to have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software -- to use it, to share it, to study it, to fork it, and to sell it. The software IRCNow provides should have no single owner; it belongs to the public.%0a\ No newline at end of file%0a
host:1615693590=125.224.29.248