Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[Hyman Rosen]

amicus_curious wrote:
> You had said:
>
> "It seeks to prevent a software user from being unable to run,
> read, change, or share a program. Since software users are
> routinely denied these freedoms, I fail to see why you think
> what the GPL prevents is not a viable outcome."
>
> I say that the notion of open source in any form would do what you want 
> here.  Say, for example, the MIT License.

The MIT license allows someone to distribute only binaries
if they so wish, for the original sources or for modified
ones. A user receiving such a binary cannot read or modify
the program. The MIT license also allows for the work to be
incorporated into combined works and for the whole to be
licensed in any way at all, including not allowing users who
get the works to share them.

> Making changes or using a GPL program as a basis for a new 
> program requires the inventor to abandon their rights to control any 
> redistribution.  That may be acceptable to some people and not 
> acceptable to others.  To the extent that it is not acceptable, it 
> stifles innovation.

These people who find it unacceptable are programmers, and the
FSF does not care about programmers. The FSF cares only about
(end) users. If providing freedom to users stifles innovation,
that is a trade-off that the FSF is willing to make. Not that
I believe for a moment that the GPL in fact stifles innovation.
Just the opposite. Computer history is littered with the binary
remnants of programs whose creators have gone out of business
or otherwise abandoned them. Those implementations are lost to
the world, instead of being available to be used in new code.