The royalty-free license under which Microsoft plans to make its upcoming new Office Open XML Formats widely available is incompatible with the GNU General Public License and will thus prevent many free and open-source software projects from using the formats, community officials say.
Now company B gets its hands on gadget X. It studies it and understand how it works. If it wants to put out a knockoff (assuming there aren’t any “real” patents protecting the device, which is quite likely if it’s new technology), it still needs to design it, buy parts, set up manufacturing, etc.
Totally understand where you’re coming from. However it still doesn’t make sense in some sectors. If you’re bringing out a new version of X every few months then it makes no sense for a hardware producer to level the playing field by making source available. If your product sales basically depend on a race to the next version then there’s no real reason to help the competition at all and plenty of reasons not to.
Apparently your comprehension skills are lacking too.
*yawns*
Yes, and the world is ending. I’m waiting for you, or anyone, to dispute it though.
Yes, and the world is ending. I’m waiting for you, or anyone, to dispute it though.
I guess you’ve given up on defending your statement that the BSD license is slavery. Smart move.
“The GPL doesn’t fight for my right to do anything I want with the software.”
—-
Of course the GPL doesn’t attempt to protect your “right” to do “anything” with the software… that is not what it was designed for.
You, as a receiver of GPL’d software, specifically do not have the “right” to redistribute any piece or extension of said software under any other license than the GPL. However, that is the only restriction – the restriction exists, because it is necessary in order to fullfill the actual goal of the GPL itself, which is simply to empower the beneficiaries of software to the greatest extent possible over the longest term possible.
BSD: “Do as thou will, shall be the whole of the law.”
GPL: “Share, and share alike.”
In order for the BSD license to do it’s thing, it must be ephemeral (any single copy of BSD licensed software could become redistributed (and possibly closed) under a more restrictive license at any time); while for the GPL to do it’s thing, it must be sticky (every copy of GPL licensed software that is extended and/or redistributed will remain GPL’d for ever).
One has arbitrarily and random short-lived “freedom”, while the other has veritably guaranteed long-lived “freedom”.
The BSD license itself, doesn’t care one way or the other about the fate of any given copy of the software it governs, while the GPL license cares very much for the fate of the software it governs.
The reason why the GPL license cares so much for the fate of the software it governs, is strictly because the GPL cares for the empowerment of the beneficiaries ( i.e., people ) of GPL’d software.
The GPL “takes care of it’s own”… BSD is aloof and detached.
Again, merely different philosophies. I’m very glad that they both exist, and I’d like to see them both prosper and become more ubiquitous.
“Interesting that you said “its freedom”. See software isn’t a living thing. It can’t have freedom. Only an irrational zealot would claim that software can have freedom. One that would elevate software to a level where it could be “free”.”
Information can be “free”, correct? Software can be “closed”, or “restricted”, correct?
Software is information, is it not?
Some people even think that information “wants” to be free.
I’m one of them.
Perhaps you were just being too quick to condemn or argue or something, but I don’t understand why you think that a condition of liberty can only occur for living things. Freedom does not require consciousness.
( Feel “free” to call me an irrational zealot or whatever if you like – I don’t care. )
Haha, except I never made such statement. You fabricated it, just as you fabricated all your anti-GPL mantras.
I have never understood how one can say Google’s business model is build around the GPL, or Sony’s. After all, if I use Ford trucks to deliver the products of my farm, would you say that my business model is build around Ford, or the make of gas I use for the trucks ? I know Google runs on some Linux distribution (I believe it’s one they have tweaked themselves), and their web server isn’t GPLed (and is probably based on Apache, not GPLed either). Has Google distributed some GPLed software ?
I was indicating to you the value of software. Do you think iPOD is the only business apple want? They sealed iPOD interface so that it only uses their stores to buy music.
I think you mean the iTunes interface; if one wishes to setup a mp3 store, and sell music, they’re more than welcome to; that music can also be loaded onto the iPod along side the iTunes downloads – no hacking required.
Real on the other hand is a example of a company who can’t get its shit together; its player interface is broken and bloated, and their installation routine is chock to the brim full of spyware, adware and other nasties. Why the hell should I go through all that just to get access to their store.
You’d think that if they’re trying to make money by selling music, they’d *ATLEAST* try to make getting the required software as easy and stress free as possible. But no, thats why they’ve been losing money since day one, and they’ll continue to lose money; btw, *NOTHING* ever stopped them from working with Creative, and release a ‘iReal’ which works with their own music store – they chose to sit on their ass, now they’re getting beaten by Apple and other players.
You think software is something which anyone can write. No it is not.
Now would you care to tell me a successful business model around GPL? Can GPL ever generate jobs like commercial software does? Can GPL companies ever donate the amount of money donated by companies like Microsoft and others?
Well, what the GPL advocates don’t realise is this; RedHat makes *VERY* little money for the amount they invest; most of their profit actually comes from interest off investments – I don’t know about you, but it seems they should be an investment company, not a software one.
GPL kills the value of software. It makes sure that you can’t run a software business if you use GPL for you products. It also makes guranttee that you can’t retain any IP if you try to use university research.
Not entirely true. IP is the idea behind it, but there are numerous ways of implementing that particular idea; nothing stopping a university, for example, coming up with an idea, and GPL’ing an example of that piece of technology in action.
Its like the idea of “I want to make a cake rise”, the answer, “put a chemical in which results in CO2 released, resulting in the cake to rise”, now, its up to the company who paid for that research to how they wish to get it working – they could use special flower, or some custom made chemical.
The fact remains, just because they have a working model licenced under GPL, doesn’t lock anyone out from using the idea behind it.
Of course. I’m not saying that the GPL is perfect for every use (hey, as I’ve said many times before, I like both licenses). I was simply pointing that for the vast majority of embedded gadgets, the GPL isn’t a problem. After all, very few gadgets use cutting-edge technology with tons of trade secrets…most hardware (such as the iPod) use well-known tech.
I know Google runs on some Linux distribution (I believe it’s one they have tweaked themselves), and their web server isn’t GPLed (and is probably based on Apache, not GPLed either). Has Google distributed some GPLed software ?
No they haven’t, and they don’t have to. Of course, the expression “built on the GPL” is ambiguous. I took it as meaning that they built their business using GPLed software (which Google did).
The problem with anti-GPL advocates is that they only understand software as a marketable product, something which is a relatively novel idea (i.e. back to the early 80s – less than 25 years ago). But software is first and foremost a tool used by individuals and corporations to produce wealth. This is the real usefulness of software, and where OSS shines.
Some people even think that information “wants” to be free.
I’m one of them.
That’s all that people need to know about you.
t must be sticky (every copy of GPL licensed software that is extended and/or redistributed will remain GPL’d for ever).
Absolutely, not true. Copyright holders can grant anyone new licenses on GPLd code.
But continue to lie and say that BSD can be “closed” when clearly it can’t be any more closed than GPL code.
I guess it comes down to zealots never admitting that as long as the code is out there it can never be “closed”. What they really hate is the fact that a developer who produced the code gave others the right to do basically anything they want to with the code. Of course the only difference is that the GPL developer has to give someone the explicit right to “close” the code.
And continue to lie saying BSD software can’t be shackled.
By the way, since you brought up “extended”. The dirty little secret that the FSF would like people not to know is that the GPL is a file-based license. I can write a new file, license it under the BSD, compile it with a bunch of GPL files and its perfectly legal. The FSF claims that the whole work is now GPL’d, but my original file does not have to be GPL, just GPL compatible.
Duh! That’s because the BSD is GPL compatible. Sheesh!
Wow good examples. IBM, GOOGLE, LINKSYS? Ha ha ha. Find some better names please. I thought you would name someone like Novell or Linspire etc
GOOGLE could use any OS, their business model is around Search and not GPL, they are not in the market of selling software products. How at all is GPL helping in their business? Any open source OS would do, they just happen to use GPL’ed one.
IBM..you got to be kidding me…they have most of their core products non-GPL. They use GPL as a free trump card to crush competion. Again negative aspect of GPL they use.
Linksys – How exactly again GPL helps in this?
I also doubt that Google or any other web service provider will be too quick to jump an any software where the license requires that the sources to their distributed services be made available to all users. I’d like the FSF to try incorporating that into their license — then you’ll really start to see how much love these companies really have for the GPL beyond providing cheap software for them to use.
Yeah, tell the sharpdevelop guys who have a large GPL codebase who thought MonoDevelop plugins had to be GPL. In fact, the sharpdevelop guys continue to lie on their forums and say that all files linked to their assemblies have to be GPL.
Oh, and the Sharpdevelop guys “close up” their code too for proprietary sale (they own all copyright or share it). How do you feel about that? Sounds like evil BSD right?
“every copy of GPL licensed software that is extended and/or redistributed will remain GPL’d for ever).”
Absolutely, not true. Copyright holders can grant anyone new licenses on GPLd code.
I said: “every copy of GPL licensed software…” will remain GPL’d for ever.
But continue to lie and say that BSD can be “closed” when clearly it can’t be any more closed than GPL code.
Would you say that it is more likely for a greater number of copies of BSD licensed software to become closed than for copies of GPL licensed software to become closed?
Would you say that anyone who recieves a copy of BSD licensed code is able to change and/or restrict the license and distribution of said code?
Now, would you say that the same thing be said of GPL’d code? Or would it be factual that the only person who can change and/or restrict the license and distribution of GPL’d software is solely the original author of said software?
And it looks like I need to repeat or clarify that I’m not saying that either one is better than the other; I like them both.
They both have a very specific and inherent nature that differentiates them from each other.
“Some people even think that information “wants” to be free.
I’m one of them.”
That’s all that people need to know about you.
Did you know that when your mom and your dad created you, that they did so by sharing genetic code? i.e…. wait for it now… information.
But that’s all you need to know about me.
I could take BSD code and relicense it under Microsoft’s EULA, without changing a single code. Bam! BSD code becomes shackled. The GPL prevents that.
The original BSD code is still free. But now we also have a shackled version of a formerly free code. So to say BSD code can’t be closed is factually false. The license itself even makes it legal to do so.
While the original version is free, there could legally be unfree versions floating around. In fact, if you dig deeper into the history of the BSD operating system, you’d see how Unix vendors shackled the BSD operating system and almost killed it with a lawsuit years later.
Apparently some BSD code became shackled and then proprietary Unix vendors were claiming the free code was stolen, IP theft so to speak. SCO tried to do that with Linux too, but so far their efforts have been in vain.
Yeah, expect Google to fork anything that goes GPL v3 when and if it affects web services. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out. And it won’t be just Google. It’ll be other big players with deep pockets that can afford to fork over lots of code and leave GNU in the dust.
[i]The original BSD code is still free. But now we also have a shackled version of a formerly free code. So to say BSD code can’t be closed is factually false. The license itself even makes it legal to do so.
While the original version is free, there could legally be unfree versions floating around. In fact, if you dig deeper into the history of the BSD operating system, you’d see how Unix vendors shackled the BSD operating system and almost killed it with a lawsuit years later. <?i>
Everything you say is exactly the same for GPL software as long as you hold copyright. Look at my SharpDevelop example where they are selling proprietary licenses. You hate the fact that developers give out code as a gift and don’t ask for anything in return. The GPL is much more greedy than the BSD license.
I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with the MonoDevelop issue, but can you state how they are violating the GPL? Can you state how they are shackling MonoDevelop?
“Some people even think that information “wants” to be free.
I’m one of them.”
Wow, now I know you have lost your grip on reality. You are one of the loonies who believe that inanimate things can have the same desires as sentient, living beings.
Did you see those two little quotes that I wrapped the word ‘wants’ in?
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF.html
Yes, and you are trying to apply a human desire to an inanimate thing (information).
As I said, users of information may want it to be free, but information itself is incapable of “wanting” to be anything.
Yes, and you are trying to apply a human desire to an inanimate thing (information).,/i>
I was merely using a figure of speech, and drawing a point.
[i]As I said, users of information may want it to be free, but information itself is incapable of “wanting” to be anything.
You are totally correct. Information – being inanimate – cannot possibly harbor conscious desire. My bad.
The best thing about this thread is watching GPL advocates (and some BSD advocates) try to spin the “values” that their beloved license represents. Yes, yes, your license is about noble ideals and the “opposing” license advocates biting the heads of babies.
Nobody calls software a living being. You have free software and unfree software. Software that was once free but is no longer free has been shackled.
Users have certain rights when they use free software. They are as follows:
– They are free to examine it.
– They are free to modify it.
– They are free to extend it.
– They are free to distribute it.
As such, both the BSD and GPL code is free software. Unfree or proprietary software, however, denies users any of these rights. How can you tell me that software that once bestowed all these rights to users both now denies users these rights isn’t shackled? It is!
The GPL goes one step further to ensure that software that was once free (i.e distributed under a free license as per the conditions above) will always remain so. The BSD does not offer such protection, for better or for worse.
To claim the BSD is better because it allows users to make derivatives of it non-free, or shackled, may appeal to corporate shylocks, but as a free software license, it is certainly less appealing. That’s all.
Is the GPL better than the BSD? Nope. Is the BSD better than the GPL? Nope. If you give a damn about software freedom which should you use? IMO, GPL. If you don’t give a damn about software freedom which should you use? Either.
Software freedom isn’t restricted to developers alone. Every software user is entitled to software freedom, if you believe in software freedom that is. Of course, if you don’t, then why are we even having this discussion?
n/m
You are totally correct. Information – being inanimate – cannot possibly harbor conscious desire. My bad.
And I appologize for calling you loony.
Yes, I don’t keep a gun in my house to shoot people who go there to demand the application of just law.
You call legislating that all document formats must be open and documented for everybody to see, even your competitors, a just and valid law?
Yes. It’s just that your app succeeds on its merits, not on holding hostage the user’s data.
It’s seldom the case that a file format hides any trade secret. Can anyone name one?
Government exists to help protect my liberty and my property; not to provide conveniences to others by taking them away.
What liberty is is pretty much subject to debate, and it’s been done to death that to protect some liberties you have to restrict others.
Property is another matter. But an app’s file format would only be the property of its creator inasmuch as writing the data to file were a more or less difficult task. Even then, it might be protected by ensuring that the format itself couldn’t be plagiarised, and if formats were open this would be easy to ascertain.
As it stands, unwillingness to disclose a file format means simply you want to prevent your end users from inter-operating with your competitors’ apps, resorting to something that has nothing to do with your app’s merits.
You have free software and unfree software. Software that was once free but is no longer free has been shackled.
Then it is the users who are being “shackled,” not the software; and they are still perfectly free to use the original version if they choose. You are still trying to make it seem like the software was snatched up by some evil entity and deprived of *its* freedom.
Software freedom isn’t restricted to developers alone. Every software user is entitled to software freedom, if you believe in software freedom that is. Of course, if you don’t, then why are we even having this discussion?
Yep, I would say that users are only entitled to what was agreed upon when they came into possession of the software. If the developer doesn’t want to release the source code, then the users aren’t entitled to it.
I never said that MonoDevelop was shackling anything.
Here’s the story. SharpDevelop is a GPL IDE for .NET. The mono crew needed an IDE for Mono so they forked it and ported it to mono/gtk#.
By the way, SharpDevelop sells proprietary licenses to its code since they own all copyright. So you have proprietary companies “shackling” GPL code in your words.
but on with the story…a few months down the road the MonoDevelop guys started talking about what license to write for the plugins. The mono guys use MiT/X11 a lot so they decided on that. Anyway, the sharpdevelop guys monitor the list and threw a tantrum saying you couldn’t write plugins with MIT/X11. The FSF came down and said yes you could.
The point being that a lot of people think that your original files linked to GPL code need to be GPL.
The GPL goes one step further to ensure that software that was once free (i.e distributed under a free license as per the conditions above) will always remain so. The BSD does not offer such protection, for better or for worse.
Wrong again. No matter how many times you say that you are wrong.
Example, I take GPL code into my company and make major modifications and don’t give back. According to your definition, the code is now “shackled”
The truth that you are incapable of admitting is that GPL or BSD can’t be shackled once its out there. It’s always going to be out there. Your problem is with BSD developers that give their code as a gift and don’t make restrictions on its use. You don’t have a problem with the license, you have a problem with the developers.
Yes. It’s just that your app succeeds on its merits, not on holding hostage the user’s data.
Is this data being held at gunpoint? Wait a minute… users still have a choice in which applications to enter their data in don’t they?
Since we’re busy enacting fascist laws here, let’s pass one which really has an impact on society. Let’s make it illegal to have children until you can prove to some bureaucrat you can afford to raise them. Or how about… oh, nevermind.
Sorry if I am repeating what has been discussed, but I’m lacking the necessary time to wade through the number of replies Can’t something like this be used to get around any such licensing issues:
– Create or have a 3rd party create an intermediate subsystem that can be used (open interface) by software to do file format translations, and have this system level component translate MS XML format to an equivalent format which doesn’t viloate MS license.
– GPL apps can them simply interface with the 3rd party subsystem to request the document in the format it requires?
The interface layer could (eg. under windows) be a replacement for the common dialog DLL, and could perhaps do translations at the dialog level, thus hiding the app completely from the technicalities. That way MS can’t claim that the GPL app is violating any licenses since the ‘new improved common dialog library’ is just handling a file open/save request and the GPL app is completely oblivious and separated from the MS formatteed documents…
Sorry if I may be repeating what has been discussed, but I’m lacking the necessary time to wade through the number of replies to check if this has been suggested before.
Can’t something like this be used to get around any such licensing issues:
– Create or have a 3rd party create an intermediate subsystem that can be used (open interface) by software to do file format translations, and have this system level component translate MS XML format to an equivalent format which doesn’t viloate MS license.
– GPL apps can them simply interface with the 3rd party subsystem to request the document in the format it requires?
The interface layer could (eg. under windows) be a replacement for the common dialog DLL, and could perhaps do translations at the dialog level, thus hiding the app completely from the technicalities. That way MS can’t claim that the GPL app is violating any licenses since the ‘new improved common dialog library’ is just handling a file open/save request and the GPL app is completely oblivious and separated from the MS formatteed documents…
apologies for the double post, i got an error at first saying i took longer than 60 seconds to send… evidently it let the first one through anyway X-|
The original BSD code is still free. But now we also have a shackled version of a formerly free code.
Jayzus, if the original is still free, no one can ‘steal’ it. The issue is about derivates. The only plausible point you might have is ‘the common guy can’t contribute to the closed derivate, and that includes the part of it that happens to be free under the BSD license’. However, this is hardly a moral condemnation, and it’s more than likely that any improvement to the free code will be merged over into the derivate anyway.
Anyone, name 1 successful example of a company taking a BSD-licensed work, adding some bits and releasing it as a new big thing with profit. Because that’s the whole criticism of the GPL towards the BSD – that that may happen. When did it? Where are the companies thriving on their derivates of BSD-licensed software?
I would say that both GPL and BSD are great for a BandAid on CANCER that is in effect DEPENDENT on THAT VERY CANCER to attempt to “cure” it.
The “cancer” that I’m refering to here is the perminant “Intellectual Property” concept of copyrights and patents which I posted about on last week’s GPL v. BSD thread.
GPL and BSD Zealots, Until we get rid of the Perminant “Intellectual Property” system and return to the American Founders’ system of copyright and patent as a Constitutional Contract to put copyrighted and/or patented products, entertainment, software and inventions in the public domain after a spacific period of time we will continue to have the the monopolies and the corporate “code theives” Neither of your “Free” licenses will prevent them because your “Free”
licenses depend on the same cancerous Perminant “Intellectual Property” system that built those monopolies and corporate “code theives” in the first place.
CLosed Source Zealots, Until you are ready to allow all your “obsolete” or “unprofitable” products to enter the public domain and allow competition to flurish again based on the idea of improving and updating public domain products rather than greedily demanding perminant monopoly over your industries through the perminant “Intellectual Property” system you are going to have to deal with strict licenses like GPL to keep you from stealing materials intended by their authors to be improved in the public domain ONLY.
However NEITHER GPL, BSD or perminant Closed Source monopolies like Microsoft are the answer to the problem of our current unhealthy software industry. (The fact that the owner of this forum started a thread about a month od so back saying the software industry is getting “boring” is actually a testemnent to its current UNHEALTHY condition both on the Free and Closed sides.) Only the abolition of the Perminant “Intellectual Property” system
and a return to the Constitutional Contract/Public Domain
system of copyright and patent either voluntairily or through legislation is going to restore the software industry BOTH Free (beer and speech) and Closed back to the health it had in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Then it is the users who are being “shackled,” not the software
Dude… whenever you see/read “shackled” or “unfree”, try to think: “restricted” or “closed”.
. is using strong, emotive language – it’s true – but I have to imagine that we all realize that little bits and bytes sitting on the magnetic plate of a hard drive somewhere are not suffering under proprietary software licenses.
To be honest, I really don’t even understand why all the bickering on both sides is happening.
We got two different software licenses. They both have their specific purpose; as indicated by the rules they were written and designed with.
If we’re arguing over which one is “free’er”, or less restrictive – then with some open honest discussion we’d see that they both are just as free in different ways.
If we’re arguing over which one has “better” morals/ethics attached to it, then we’ll never get anyone because such things are entirely subjective.
Even debating over the prospective pros and cons that each one has is pretty difficult, because those are subjective also.
I, personaly, prefer the GPL – because I mostly jive with the larger message/ideology/perspective of the FSF.
Though I very much appreciate the BSD because it is completely non-commital/aloof/a-political, yet it is still _free software_.
I also like, very much, how both licenses are entirely volauntary.
Yes. It’s just that your app succeeds on its merits, not on holding hostage the user’s data.
Is this data being held at gunpoint?
‘Hostage’ means retained somewhere against will of the owner. It may involve guns when it’s people, but not always. For data, it’s usually some file format.
Wait a minute… users still have a choice in which applications to enter their data in don’t they?
No. They must use what plays well with others or the reverse.
The issue is the liberty of users – the liberty to make their choice* based on the advantages of a product. To allow a product to succeed on anything other than its real or perceived merits is anti-capitalist and un-democratic, not to mention bad-faith.
(*) actually not to have to make one and be able to use several products at the same time.
Since we’re busy enacting fascist laws here, let’s pass one which really has an impact on society. Let’s make it illegal to have children until you can prove to some bureaucrat you can afford to raise them. Or how about… oh, nevermind.
Don’t be silly.
Anyone, name 1 successful example of a company taking a BSD-licensed work, adding some bits and releasing it as a new big thing with profit. Because that’s the whole criticism of the GPL towards the BSD – that that may happen. When did it? Where are the companies thriving on their derivates of BSD-licensed software?
Didn’t Windows originally use a BSD TCP/IP stack?
“I would say that both GPL and BSD are great for a BandAid on CANCER that is in effect DEPENDENT on THAT VERY CANCER to attempt to “cure” it.
The “cancer” that I’m refering to here is the perminant “Intellectual Property” concept of copyrights and patents”
Well said, man – I agree with everything you said.
But I do think that it’s licenses like the GPL which are currently a very necessary bootstrap process towards achieving those ends.
One very major flaw I’ve seen in it though, is the fact that it nonetheless uses the very same system that it’s struggling against in the first place! It really is a catch-22.
Hah, yeah its called OSX.
Anyone, name 1 successful example of a company taking a BSD-licensed work, adding some bits and releasing it as a new big thing with profit. Because that’s the whole criticism of the GPL towards the BSD – that that may happen. When did it? Where are the companies thriving on their derivates of BSD-licensed software?
Didn’t Windows originally use a BSD TCP/IP stack?
So it was. But Windows might as well have used its own, and in fact has developed one. The fact remains that it wasn’t (that I know) the BSD tcp/ip stack that made Windows thrive – MS actually wrote a substitue for it and all. According to the GPL mindset, such a thing doesn’t happen – what, they ‘stole’ the code and now they throw it away??
To allow a product to succeed on anything other than its real or perceived merits is anti-capitalist and un-democratic, not to mention bad-faith.
Since when is the free-market democratic beyond consumers “voting” with their wallets?
Don’t be silly.
And I think that your desire to have the government mandate open file formats is equally silly.
Hah, yeah its called OSX.
http://www.opendarwin.org
Still looks “free” to me.
Hah, yeah its called OSX.
I’ve mentioned OS X way above as the only example I could find. But OS X isn’t a derivative of BSD in any way. It uses a BSD component, which doesn’t account for half of OS X.
Now, who loses from this, free as in freedom speaking as the FSF is fond of? That I see, only the BSD developers, and that not because OS X is not free, but because they’re working for free for Apple. Well, in the GPL world you always work for free. Incidentally, Apple does release Darwin free – which they didn’t have to do.
So, per the FSF’s rationale to criticise the ‘BSD license’, what points are valid in the case of OS X? None that I can see – can you?
… what, they ‘stole’ the code and now they throw it away??
or did they???
It’s proprietary, so nobody really knows for sure. Let’s get the conspiracies started.
bleyz:
“To allow a product to succeed on anything other than its real or perceived merits is anti-capitalist”
You have a very optimistic view of capitalism.
renaldo:
“Since when is the free-market democratic beyond consumers “voting” with their wallets?”
True… but since when was there ever an actual free-market? Certainly not now. But you’re right that consumers are still somewhat free to choose to buy or not buy most software at the moment.
bleyz never said anything about “free” or “not free”
To allow a product to succeed on anything other than its real or perceived merits is anti-capitalist and un-democratic, not to mention bad-faith.
Since when is the free-market democratic beyond consumers “voting” with their wallets?
In any scale of values worth caring about, democracy is above the market. But this is not a conflict. Closed file formats are harmful to the market in that they promote the success of products on something which has actually a negative value to the users.
Consumers may only vote with their wallets if they’re choosing based on advantages a product has over the others. In the software market it’s unfortunately often the case that companies use things other than that (e.g. closed file formats) to force a choice. So, wallet voting becomes an illusion.
Don’t be silly.
And I think that your desire to have the government mandate open file formats is equally silly.
But that stems from a primeval fear and mistrust of ‘the government’.
One of the missions of government is to prevent bullying. Closed file formats are instruments of bullying.
He (or she) was referring to the pro-GPL argument that companies are taking BSD code and using it to their profit and not giving back their modifications.
So, while Darwin is an example of BSD code used for profit, Apple has been very forthright in providing the updated sources as OS revisions are released.
You are totally correct. Information – being inanimate – cannot possibly harbor conscious desire. My bad.
Actually…DNA is information (on an organic medium), and while in the microscopic sense it is not conscious, in the macroscopic sense it certainly is.
Renaldo, it seems to me that you’re taking this too literally. One can argue that a virus “wants” to infect files, inasmuch as it actively seeks to do so. Complex systems, though they are not alive in the biological sense, do exhibit behaviors that are not unlike those of living organisms.
In any case, while I may not always agree with metaphors, analogies and allegories, they are after all figures of speech. One can pretty much say that “information wants to be free” because information has an observable tendency to disseminate itself (a good example is the speed at which gossip spreads). It is in fact much easier to spread information than to contain it, therefore the “natural” behavior for information is to be communicated. In that figurative sense, information does in fact want to be free.
To Software Professions,
If you want to see a healhty software industry…use BSD
If you don’t care about software industry future…use either GPL or BSD
If you have want to see software industry die or stagnate…use GPL
I have exaplained it over and over, businesses are a compulsory necessasity for an industrial growth. Anyways now i am done…phew finally…i wonder why the f*** today after a long time i got in such a long discussion but well…its over..
So whichever license you guys use, hope you all have a better fortune and are able to provide a better life to your family and kids.
Over and out
But that stems from a primeval fear and mistrust of ‘the government’.
One of the missions of government is to prevent bullying. Closed file formats are instruments of bullying.
You are absolutely correct. My opinion is that government is a necessary evil, and should never be granted powers lightly.
You and I have slightly different definitions of the word “bully.” Again, it is a choice of the developer to open his file formats or not, and it is the choice of the consumer to take his money elsewhere if he doesn’t like it.
Actually…DNA is information (on an organic medium)
I would say it’s data and perhaps an automat in the macroscopic sence.
, and while in the microscopic sense it is not conscious, in the macroscopic sense it certainly is.
It isn’t conscious, it just has a limited set of instructions to begin with that gets a life of it’s own bound by that instruction set.It’s an automat.
“Actually…DNA is information (on an organic medium), and while in the microscopic sense it is not conscious, in the macroscopic sense it certainly is.
<snip>”
Thanks – and well stated; I wasn’t about to get into it w/ renaldo; plus it was getting way off topic, that’s a whole new subject entirely!
I believe that organic information wants to be free ( as you say, on the macro scale ) – because that’s what organic information does… it spreads and grows and evolves; and struggles to do so – but inorganic information has the illusion of wanting to be free, it’s only manipulated in that manner by living organisms; though when you get down to it, on the ultra-macro scale – it’s all the same: the universe is a living organism, it’s _all_ information… and information wants to be free. loop.
Anyways now i am done…phew finally…i wonder why the f*** today after a long time i got in such a long discussion but well…its over..
I’m tempted to say “finally!” but that would just be rude. Meanwhile, you forgot to give us a single example of a company that was made bankrupt by the GPL.
It seems to me that what you really care about is a business model. Well, you should know that, throughout history, business models and industries have lived, died and evolved. It’s the natural course of things. After all, modern technology put telephone operators and typesetters out of work…
No one has an obligation to keep the proprietary model of software distribution alive just to guarantee profits for ISVs. But we will always need programmers, and as long as there’s a need, there will be money in it for them.
You know, no one is forcing anyone to use the GPL. If it’s the most popular FOSS license, it must be because it fulfills a need. To deny that such a need exist is not only foolish, but also disrespectful for those developers who choose that license.
Still, you’re free to believe what you want about the GPL and its effect on the software industry. However, without concrete examples of actual harm it’s kind of hard to take your doomsday warnings seriously.
Are you saying the SharpDevelop guys have shackled GPL software and they are now selling it as a proprietary product?
Example, I take GPL code into my company and make major modifications and don’t give back. According to your definition, the code is now “shackled”
You have done nothing to violate free software. That’s a perfectly valid action. You can take GPL code and use it internally for whatever tasks that suits your need, however, you can’t make it proprietary, unfree, or shackled. Lets go over what makes software free. Software is free when
– it can be examined.
– it can be modified.
– it can be extended.
– it can be freely distributed.
The moment you prevent any software from carrying out any of the above, you are shackling them and shackling software that was once free.
I have no problem with BSD developers. I hold all free software developers in very high esteem. However, I have problems with the mindless opportunists, the corporate extortionist, the money-worshipping capitalist monopolist, the software patenters who hate fair competition and related freaks who will milk the efforts of noble free software developers for what they are worth, give absolutely nothing back to the free software community, overcharge ill-informed users for their products in addition to having them forcefully enter in non-negotiable EULAs and have the balls to spread blatant falsehoods, FUDs, and reign insults upon the free software developers, community and supporters.
Wolf, choosing a software license in which your livelihood is dependant is something to take seriously.
There are reasons you can come up with to use GPL. Probably, the biggest one is dual-license. The trolltech model… Some people will GPL because they’re mostly interested in inhouse development and it doesn’t really matter..except that they can get other similiar industry players to contribute.
Of course there you can always mix-n-match too. Release some of your stuff under GPL/BSD and keep other bits proprietary.
It all depends on what your business model is and what you’re trying to accomplish.
I understand your point. The reason why I comment on the use of the word “want” is that RMS and the FSF people have made the whole debate one of morality. By assigning information (software in this case) a human desire and calling it “free” or “not free”, they are able claim that proprietary software is immoral, just as you might say that slavery is immoral. This is also why I am so strongly against the use of the word “shackled” when referring to software, because it is being used as an allusion to a person being shackled and held against their will. Notice that it was never said (except by me) that the end-users were shackled, but that the software itself was.
It isn’t conscious, it just has a limited set of instructions to begin with that gets a life of it’s own bound by that instruction set.It’s an automat.
True, except that if you really want to go down that road one can argue that consciousness itself is but the macroscopic manifestation of a series of deterministic microscopic interactions that are themselves quite limited.
This is where science meets philosophy: Buddhism often states that self-consciousness is an illusion. It simply goes to show that complex systems are often very simply when you look at them from up close.
But I agree, we are dangerously off-topic.
The SharpDevelop guys do sell proprietary licenses so in your definition it does get shackled when companies release the code.
– it can be examined.
– it can be modified.
– it can be extended.
– it can be freely distributed.
And sorry, once it goes in house none of those thing apply anymore. You don’t have the right to ask Company A to release their modifications to GPL code that they keep in house.
I suspect the whole reason for the GPL not addressing that issue is because it would be impossible to prove. We’re already seeing GPL v3 addressing the “web services” issue.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shackled
A restraint or check to action or progress. Often used in the plural: economic shackles that precluded further investment.
To restrict, confine, or hamper.
Like most words, they can be used and/or misunderstood under different contexts.
While one could say that RMS and the FSF are motivated by moral ideals (nothing wrong with that), you are mistaken when you claim that it is the code’s well-being that they care about. For one, that doesn’t make sense. RMS is well aware that code isn’t alive and doesn’t have feelings. The moral dimension applies to those who have (or don’t have) access to the code. In a society that is increasingly technological, the question of who controls the code of the information systems we use everyday is of paramount importance. This is what RMS and the FSF see themselves as defending.
In my view, the language used by . is colorful, but no less exaggerate than the one used by the various anti-GPL advocates on this thread.
“And sorry, once it goes in house none of those thing apply anymore. You don’t have the right to ask Company A to release their modifications to GPL code that they keep in house.
I suspect the whole reason for the GPL not addressing that issue is because it would be impossible to prove.”
I’m pretty certain that the GPL and the FSF have no interest in attempting to usurp what you do with free software in your own house.
The GPL is interested in how copies of GPL’d code is re-distributed.
Now, is it “unethical” for a person or company to take GPL’d code, and extend/modify/enhance it for their own use/purposes and not share those changes? Well, it certainly defeats the “share, and share alike” principle, but the GPL has absolutely zero ability/possibility of ever “enforcing” such a rule.
Quote: “(By the way GPL kills competion by making thing free).”
Bullshit. Ever heard of competition by quality? Price isn’t the only area of competition. Why is BMW more highly regarded than say, Volkswagen? Quality.
Modern society has become a ‘throw-away’ society, one that doesn’t care if something is shoddily built, and lasts a short period of time. People have become used to the fact that cheap stuff is poor quality (as a general rule), and that it’s OK to buy cheap stuff and have it die early, because it’s so cheap that you can go out and buy another one.
I’m by no means a perfectionist, but I have pride in my job, and the quality of my job. I see a lot of people out there today in the workforce, and the pride and quality of their job is non existant. I think it has something to do with the greedy shareholders wanting more and more profit, which means less workers, to do more work, and ends up resulting in lesser quality from rushed jobs. That’s not the sort of products I want. Unfortunately, I’m stuck with them, whether I like it or not.
Dave
Except that there is no moral grounds to require an application’s creator to release his work against his wishes. Software is no different than any other tool aside from the ease in duplication, yet you don’t see the moral crusades to have the design and manufacturing information for most other consumer items released to the public.
I’m pretty certain that the GPL and the FSF have no interest in attempting to usurp what you do with free software in your own house.
I’m not Renaldo, but I guess you were referring to me since that was my post.
They already are trying to extend the viralness of the GPL in v3 of what you can do in-house. Wait for google and others with lots of cash to fork.
Examples:
XEN is harming VMWare and Virtual PC market
gcc has diminished the use of commercial compilers.
Linux harmed Solaris so much
phpBB – Commercial bulletin board market is reduced to a large extent
There are many examples like this that i can think of.
Someone said about [Quality] so here are my thoughts about that:
gcc is good enough but not highest quality, all result show Intel compilers are better but when we see perf/price ration gcc is above due to 0 $ price. How the hell can someone compete with 0$ software unless quality bar is so high that using free cost you more (like the Munich example).
So yes with quality we can compete but sir price matters a lot. Example is the success of windows vs apple. My whole problem with GPL is that it promotes the trend where software that i develop in my leisure time harms actual software business…that business on which i depend to earn bread for my family.
Good night now and i hope i answered everyone.
Nobody says developers can’t sell software, be it or free or proprietary. All I’m saying is that while it legal to shackle free software if it is licensed under the BSD, it’s theoretically, impossible to do under the GPL.
Whether or not the software is developed privately or in public is irrelevent. What’s important, at least, from the perspective of free software advocates, is that the code remain free for its users, whenever possible.
In brief, you can’t legally shackle a GPL application, while for years, corporate whores have exploiting and shackling BSD applications and attacking the free software community while they were at it. I don’t need to start mentioning names, you know them already.
“I’m not Renaldo, but I guess you were referring to me since that was my post.”
Whoops, yep – sorry.
“They already are trying to extend the viralness of the GPL in v3 of what you can do in-house.”
Really? I wouldn’t have expected that, and I’m curious as to the specific details. Do you have a good link or reference?
( I’ll search around on my own as well )
We were talking about in-house GPL software development and your specifications of freedom – the code does not remain free for its users.
In brief, you can’t legally shackle a GPL application, while for years, corporate whores have exploiting and shackling BSD applications and attacking the free software community while they were at it. I don’t need to start mentioning names, you know them already.
Wrong again for probably the 30th time, but just because you repeat something doesn’t make it come true. I guess you are making progress though since you’re not talking about slavery.
Just google around for GPL version 3 (hell, just search OSNews should be some article about it here).
The basic premise is that Stallman wants v3 to extend the viralness of the GPL to companies that offer “web services” – which in theory could mean a lot of things.
Except that there is no moral grounds to require an application’s creator to release his work against his wishes.
…and no one is advocating that. Now, you can’t also force copyright holders to allow others to use their IP in ways that go against their wishes. So if someone creates a derivative from GPL software, he must abide by the conditions set forth by the copyright holder of the original code. Since the person doing the derivative work is aware of this, he cannot claim that having to license his derivative under the GPL if he redistributes it goes “against his wishes.”
As for the original application’s creator, he chose the GPL, therefore no one is going against his wishes either. RMS and the FSF cannot force anyone to license their original work under the GPL, nor would they want to (insofar as they are in the libertarian/left quadrant of the political compass). They can only advocate it, as is their constitutionally-guaranteed right to do so. You may disagree with the philosophy behind it, but you can hardly disagree with their right to advocate what they believe is right…
Except that there is no moral grounds to require an application’s creator to release his work against his wishes.
I disagree. There’s a blibical saying that says do onto others as you wish others would do onto you. Free riding and exploitation has never attained any level of morality even among atheist. There is a good reason, I hammer on the words, slavery, shackles and words that denote entities who have been given freedom, but prefer to snatch freedom away from others in the name of money/profits. You’ve got to be heartless if you see nothing immoral about that.
The basic premise is that Stallman wants v3 to extend the viralness of the GPL to companies that offer “web services” – which in theory could mean a lot of things.
I’ve heard this a lot from anti-GPL advocates, but when I’ve asked for actual information on the subject I’ve never heard from them again. Until you or others can come up with an honest, documented analysis of the actual license with regards to Web Service, I’m afraid we’ll have to continue considering this as FUD.
I should have used the word demand instead of require. Whoops.
As for the original application’s creator, he chose the GPL, therefore no one is going against his wishes either. RMS and the FSF cannot force anyone to license their original work under the GPL, nor would they want to (insofar as they are in the libertarian/left quadrant of the political compass). They can only advocate it, as is their constitutionally-guaranteed right to do so. You may disagree with the philosophy behind it, but you can hardly disagree with their right to advocate what they believe is right…
Except that it is RMS’ stated goal to have all software be “free” software and preferably under the terms of the GPL or similar license I’m sure. At some point, if that were to happen, all software developers would be forced to release any new software they write under the GPL as well, unless they felt like completely starting from scratch and creating their own operating systems. So in their ideal world, “free” software would become compulsory simply because of the dependence on already “free” software. The end result of the GPL was certainly no accident.
“The basic premise is that Stallman wants v3 to extend the viralness of the GPL to companies that offer “web services” – which in theory could mean a lot of things.”
I’ve heard this a lot from anti-GPL advocates, but when I’ve asked for actual information on the subject I’ve never heard from them again. Until you or others can come up with an honest, documented analysis of the actual license with regards to Web Service, I’m afraid we’ll have to continue considering this as FUD.
It appears he’s talking about the “ASP loophole”.
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/01/1636202&mode=neste…
http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/07/13/1831245.shtml
I’m perusing further info at fsf.org on the gpl3 to see if I can find what the concieved solution for this is now — it does seem to be a difficult one.
I disagree. There’s a blibical saying that says do onto others as you wish others would do onto you. Free riding and exploitation has never attained any level of morality even among atheist. There is a good reason, I hammer on the words, slavery, shackles and words that denote entities who have been given freedom, but prefer to snatch freedom away from others in the name of money/profits. You’ve got to be heartless if you see nothing immoral about that.
Umm, please explain how people who freely release their code to the public, without making any demands on whose who use it, can be exploited.
Let me break things down for you. Every software has a user. It doesn’t matter whether the software is designed in-house or for public consumption.
Assuming we agree on the above, GPL software is never shackled. Why? Because users who use GPL software will always have access to the code, will be free to modify the code, will be free to extend the code and will be free to distribute the code as they please. Again, it doesn’t matter whether the code is in-house or for public consumption.
But their is one added bonus, the code will never be shackled. It will remain free forever. Again, it doesn’t matter whether the code is in-house, or if it finds its way to the public at large.
The flaw in your logic is that you think code that is developed in-house is proprietary, by default. That’s silly. You are free to develop GPL code in-house and that doesn’t make it proprietary or shackled.
Quote: “Examples:
XEN is harming VMWare and Virtual PC market
gcc has diminished the use of commercial compilers.
Linux harmed Solaris so much
phpBB – Commercial bulletin board market is reduced to a large extent
There are many examples like this that i can think of.”
XEN is harming vmware? So, because vmware was in existence first, it has the right to a virtual monopoly (pun intended btw). I couldn’t give a rats ass about vmware and their business model. If they can’t give me what I want, and how I want, I won’t use their product. That’s my *freedom* of choice. Or are you saying, that in order to support your perverse business ideals, screw the people, empower the business and be done with it all?
Oh, and guess what! If software was open and free, then virtual software like Xen and vmware wouldn’t be needed! Linux or OS X or BSD could write software that interacts with Windows, or vice versa. True software freedom! I’m sure you must own Microsoft shares and be starting to get really pissed off cos they’re doing so shitty!
gcc has been around for a long while. It does a pretty good job. Not as fast as the Intel compiler, but pretty close. It’s open, it’s free. It’s development isn’t tied to one company.
Tell me, what happens if Software vendor A makes a product. You buy it. Spend lots of money. It’s closed source. Then Software vendor A goes bust. You have a bug with their software, but can’t get support from them cos they went bust. You’ve *paid* for a product, and due to common business economics, you’re being screwed. That doesn’t happen with *true* open software. Try and weasel your way out of that one.
Linux harmed Solaris so much? That’s the biggest piece of bullshit i’ve heard in a long while. Sun hurt itself thru self stupidity. Shitty installer. Shitty desktop environment. Proprietary hardware. Closed source. Average performance. High cost. Lack of software applications that run on the platform. Linux has made Sun lift its game. That means an improved product. Solaris 10 is a lot better than earlier incarnations of Solaris. I think a lot of people would agree with me here. Even Microsoft’s Windows 2003 has been an improvement – increased stability and security for a starters. What guarantee did consumers have that Microsoft would do so? They only did it because they knew Linux was kicking their ass in the server game for a variety of reasons. If Linux didn’t exist, then Microsoft would still be offering a shoddy level of stability and security with Windows 2003. And in the end, the customer, the one buying and spending their hard earned money, gets shafted. If that’s your idea of business, god help us.
If businesses cannot offer a quality product, at a reasonable price, with reasonable competition, then they don’t deserve to be in business. You’re looking at it from the perspective of the business, some 5% of the entire population. I’m looking at it from the end of the consumer, the other 95% of the populace.
phpBB – again, we come down to competition. Just because it’s a commercial and proprietary business doesn’t give them the damn right to monopolise the industry and own it all. That’s unhealthy for competition, product quality, pricing etc and not good for the consumer.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about Wolf.
Dave
Umm, please explain how people who freely release their code to the public, without making any demands on whose who use it, can be exploited.
Easy, by denying people the same cordiality they have been accorded. Of course, we arguing moral grounds here, not capitalistic motives.
“But their is one added bonus, the code will never be shackled. It will remain free forever. Again, it doesn’t matter whether the code is in-house, or if it finds its way to the public at large.”
. makes a good point here, Mark — even while the GPL’d software is ‘horded’ away and kept internal to in-house development; it is *still* under the GPL.
Taking a copy of GPL’d software out of the “wild”, and extending and/or using it in a closed environment in no way changes or invalidates the grants/priviledges and restrictions of the GPL. It remains copylefted, nonetheless.
Tell me, what happens if Software vendor A makes a product. You buy it. Spend lots of money. It’s closed source. Then Software vendor A goes bust. You have a bug with their software, but can’t get support from them cos they went bust. You’ve *paid* for a product, and due to common business economics, you’re being screwed. That doesn’t happen with *true* open software. Try and weasel your way out of that one.
So I go out to buy a new power tool. This power tool has several attachments, and because it uses a patented mechanism, I can only buy the attachments from the same company. Well, a few years down the road, the tool breaks and when I go to buy another one, I learn that it was discontinued a while back. So now I have a couple hundred dollars worth of attachments that I cannot use anymore because the tool broke and isn’t made anymore.
Sound familiar?
Easy, by denying people the same cordiality they have been accorded. Of course, we arguing moral grounds here, not capitalistic motives.
No, because they willingly gave it in the first place with full knowledge beforehand of the potential consequences. Nobody forced them to release their code under a BSD license.
Except that it is RMS’ stated goal to have all software be “free” software and preferably under the terms of the GPL or similar license I’m sure.
It is an utopian goal. It’s not as if he could force anyone to write free software. There is no coercition involved.
At some point, if that were to happen, all software developers would be forced to release any new software they write under the GPL as well, unless they felt like completely starting from scratch and creating their own operating systems.
I’m sorry, but you’re making a false assumption here: that the license of the Operating System has any bearing on the applications that run on it. You can have proprietary, closed-source applications that run on a GPLed OS. So what you’re saying is not only highly hypothetical, but also incorrect.
So in their ideal world, “free” software would become compulsory simply because of the dependence on already “free” software.
As long as someone wants to write proprietary software, it will be his complete right to do so. All he’ll have to do is sit down and program without using someone else’s code. Also, don’t forget that copyright expires after 95 years (and therefore so do the obligations required by the GPL on a specific piece of software).
The end result of the GPL was certainly no accident.
The FSF isn’t a vast conspiracy that wants to force anything down anyone’s throat. I feel that you’re now the one being overly dramatic….
No, because they willingly gave it in the first place with full knowledge beforehand of the potential consequences. Nobody forced them to release their code under a BSD license.
Or they gave it having good faith in your moral standing and that of mankind in general. Or for many other noble deeds other than being exploited. Who knows?
Who said the FSF was a conspiracy? They are quite upfront about their desires.
So I go out to buy a new power tool. This power tool has several attachments, and because it uses a patented mechanism, I can only buy the attachments from the same company. Well, a few years down the road, the tool breaks and when I go to buy another one, I learn that it was discontinued a while back. So now I have a couple hundred dollars worth of attachments that I cannot use anymore because the tool broke and isn’t made anymore.
Sound familiar?
I’m sorry, Renaldo, but you just proved David Pastern’s point. What you described is exactly the risk people take when they buy proprietary products. If the company goes broke or the product is discontinued, you’re SOL. With FOSS at least you can repair/enhance it yourself or hire someone to do it for you.
Who said the FSF was a conspiracy? They are quite upfront about their desires.
Yet people act as if RMS and the FSF had the power to coerce people into adhering to their philosophy. In fact, they can only advocate it, and there’s not a single thing that’s wrong with that.
Or they gave it having good faith in your moral standing and that of mankind in general. Or for many other noble deeds other than being exploited. Who knows?
Now you are just grasping at straws.
Maybe you’ve been holed up in a cave for months or maybe you don’t want to deal with facts.
Straight from Stallman’s right hand man.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog
So I go out to buy a new power tool. This power tool has several attachments, and because it uses a patented mechanism, I can only buy the attachments from the same company. Well, a few years down the road, the tool breaks and when I go to buy another one, I learn that it was discontinued a while back. So now I have a couple hundred dollars worth of attachments that I cannot use anymore because the tool broke and isn’t made anymore.
Sound familiar?
Haha! Excellent. Now apply that same analogy to that the $1,000,000 software your business invested in. Do you see how totally fucked up you are assuming the software is proprietary, shackled or unfree?
At least if it is free software, you can always fix things yourself, or employ the services of an expert. It seems you’d rather prefer spending another million dollar or more on a similar software product, right?
Actually, I was just illustrating that these doomsday scenarios involving proprietary software are not unique to the software industry; yet I don’t see the crusades to abolish patents or to open other industries like this call for software “freedom.” Like i said in another post, software really isn’t any different than any other product except for the ease in duplication. I image it’s pretty hard to make your own reciprocating saw.
I know your ideology clouds your mind, so let me explain this slowly.
I’ve got a company. I employ 3 programmers. We get some GPL software and they add/modify it for some internal use. At the end of the additions/modifications I fire the 3 programmers. They have no legal access to that GPL source code anymore. They can’t go crying to the FSF and demand that they get the source code. Those “users” are “shackled” as you like to put it. In fact, nobody in the company has legal authority to the code except officers.
So just stop the lying because nobody is buying it.
“Straight from Stallman’s right hand man.