So copyright infringement isn't 'theft', yet violating the GNU is theft? You can't download a car....
I'm really tired of these arguments. If you release something and say that it's 'free', it's pretty disingenuous to chase after someone for not releasing their own changes.
Calling it 'theft' doesn't really make sense because nothing of value was actually stolen. The original code is still there for all to enjoy.
Most places I've worked stay away from GNU code (besides compilers, servers, and anything not used in the main product) like the plague because of people like Matt Mullenweg.
I would much rather have the BSD license, which is truly free for everyone.
UPDATE: I always thought HN was the place for intelligent discourse, yet I am always disappointed.
You are being downvoted because you misunderstood the GPL, which is a heavy fault in the software community.
GPL says: "If you take GPL code, you must publish the whole app as GPL." In the GPL mindset, open-source is contagious. Therefore if you package GPL code with a commercial license, then you've shipped software you didn't legally have a license for, which is grounds for unlimited damages. By the way, this is why your company stays away from GPL, not "People like Matt Mullenweg".
GPL is Free as in "don't use this if you want to close it".
If you infringe the copyright on something closed, you do it by spreading that thing when you aren't supposed to. If you infringe the copyright on something open, you do it by refusing to distribute your enhancements to it when you're required to. They're not directly comparable situations.
Freedom goes in two directions. "Freedom to" and "Freedom from". The BSD license is a "Freedom to enhance the code as you wish" license. The GPL licenses are "Freedom from someone enhancing the code without sharing those enhancements". A "freedom to" license is great in the short term; it encourages individual products. A "freedom from" license is great in the long term; it encourages growth of the ecosystem as a whole.
Calling it "theft" is a stretch, just like in other cases of copyright violation. Still, the community is owed a release of the modified code. "Theft" captures the spirit of the situation, even if it's not applicable in the literal sense.
Your comment reads like you don’t understand either 1. the intention of the GPL (copyleft), 2. how it’s supposed to work (requiring derivative works to also be GPL), or 3. you don't think it’s legally enforceable (it is).
Whether or not the GPL is a ‘good thing’, the scenario in question is pretty cut and dry. The problem itsn’t “people like Matt Mullenweg”, it’s people and organizations who don’t RTFM on the licenses of the code they decide to co-opt into their mainline product. It looks an awful lot like Wix is afoul of the GPL, and therefore has probably committed copyright infringement.
There is a BIG difference between "stealing" a copyright work and just watch it yourself, and stealing a copyright work to make millions of copies and sell them for profit.
Note that GNU allows you to actually do make millions of copies and sell them for profit! BUT you must also allow those who buy it to also do so! You can not take away those rights.
I prefer the BSD license to the GPL myself, but I downvoted you because you seem to be coming from a deliberately obtuse point of view just to cause controversy, not intelligent discourse as you are claiming to want. In other words, you commented with the full expectation of being downvoted just so you would have a reason to complain. I may be wrong of course, please correct me if so.
Again, despite my preference for the BSD license I side with Wordpress on this issue; it's a clear violation of the GPL and should be enforced.
Comments
So copyright infringement isn't 'theft', yet violating the GNU is theft? You can't download a car....
I'm really tired of these arguments. If you release something and say that it's 'free', it's pretty disingenuous to chase after someone for not releasing their own changes.
Calling it 'theft' doesn't really make sense because nothing of value was actually stolen. The original code is still there for all to enjoy.
Most places I've worked stay away from GNU code (besides compilers, servers, and anything not used in the main product) like the plague because of people like Matt Mullenweg.
I would much rather have the BSD license, which is truly free for everyone.
UPDATE: I always thought HN was the place for intelligent discourse, yet I am always disappointed.
You are being downvoted because you misunderstood the GPL, which is a heavy fault in the software community.
GPL says: "If you take GPL code, you must publish the whole app as GPL." In the GPL mindset, open-source is contagious. Therefore if you package GPL code with a commercial license, then you've shipped software you didn't legally have a license for, which is grounds for unlimited damages. By the way, this is why your company stays away from GPL, not "People like Matt Mullenweg".
GPL is Free as in "don't use this if you want to close it".
If you infringe the copyright on something closed, you do it by spreading that thing when you aren't supposed to. If you infringe the copyright on something open, you do it by refusing to distribute your enhancements to it when you're required to. They're not directly comparable situations.
Freedom goes in two directions. "Freedom to" and "Freedom from". The BSD license is a "Freedom to enhance the code as you wish" license. The GPL licenses are "Freedom from someone enhancing the code without sharing those enhancements". A "freedom to" license is great in the short term; it encourages individual products. A "freedom from" license is great in the long term; it encourages growth of the ecosystem as a whole.
Calling it "theft" is a stretch, just like in other cases of copyright violation. Still, the community is owed a release of the modified code. "Theft" captures the spirit of the situation, even if it's not applicable in the literal sense.
Your comment reads like you don’t understand either 1. the intention of the GPL (copyleft), 2. how it’s supposed to work (requiring derivative works to also be GPL), or 3. you don't think it’s legally enforceable (it is).
Whether or not the GPL is a ‘good thing’, the scenario in question is pretty cut and dry. The problem itsn’t “people like Matt Mullenweg”, it’s people and organizations who don’t RTFM on the licenses of the code they decide to co-opt into their mainline product. It looks an awful lot like Wix is afoul of the GPL, and therefore has probably committed copyright infringement.
There is a BIG difference between "stealing" a copyright work and just watch it yourself, and stealing a copyright work to make millions of copies and sell them for profit.
Note that GNU allows you to actually do make millions of copies and sell them for profit! BUT you must also allow those who buy it to also do so! You can not take away those rights.
Your update is funny because you got intelligent responses to your unintelligent post
I prefer the BSD license to the GPL myself, but I downvoted you because you seem to be coming from a deliberately obtuse point of view just to cause controversy, not intelligent discourse as you are claiming to want. In other words, you commented with the full expectation of being downvoted just so you would have a reason to complain. I may be wrong of course, please correct me if so.
Again, despite my preference for the BSD license I side with Wordpress on this issue; it's a clear violation of the GPL and should be enforced.
That's why it comes with GPL - which means , you can use it subject to this agreement . so sounds like 'theft' is right word to pick .