>
Your 'logic' is ridicoulus, GPL is no more 'enforcing' sharing than proprietary software is 'enforcing' non-sharing.You call my logic ridiculous, and then you reiterate my entire point. The GPL is enforcing sharing in the same way proprietary software is enforcing non-sharing.
Whereas the MIT and BSD licenses provide just as many freedoms as the GPL, without enforcing anything. They are, defacto, more free, both for end users and end developers. End users are free to only use open-source products, if they so desire, and developers are free to use liberally licensed open source however they wish to, too.
> Overall your entire line of thought is clearly that developers should not be allowed to share open source unless they allow it to be used in proprietary code, because if they don't they cause 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry.
This is a strawman argument that has no basis in what I actually said.
I think people should be allowed to use the GPL, just like I think people should be allowed to advocate communism. I also think that we should do our best to demonstrate the fallaciousness of their arguments, because they have the capacity to cause significant harm to our industry.
> Whenever I come across someone like you I'm really glad the GPL exists as an alternative.
And whenever I come across someone like you, it is made apparent that the GPL is more of a religion and an a political statement, rather than a reasoned decision made from an understanding of the economic and human realities of industry and our society.
You call my logic ridiculous, and then you reiterate my entire point. The GPL is enforcing sharing in the same way proprietary software is enforcing non-sharing.
Whereas the MIT and BSD licenses provide just as many freedoms as the GPL, without enforcing anything. They are, defacto, more free, both for end users and end developers. End users are free to only use open-source products, if they so desire, and developers are free to use liberally licensed open source however they wish to, too.
> Overall your entire line of thought is clearly that developers should not be allowed to share open source unless they allow it to be used in proprietary code, because if they don't they cause 'immeasurable harm' to the software industry.
This is a strawman argument that has no basis in what I actually said.
I think people should be allowed to use the GPL, just like I think people should be allowed to advocate communism. I also think that we should do our best to demonstrate the fallaciousness of their arguments, because they have the capacity to cause significant harm to our industry.
> Whenever I come across someone like you I'm really glad the GPL exists as an alternative.
And whenever I come across someone like you, it is made apparent that the GPL is more of a religion and an a political statement, rather than a reasoned decision made from an understanding of the economic and human realities of industry and our society.