> Forget Stallman. It's basic human decency. If I benefit from someone else's work, the least I can do is let others benefit from my work as well.
"Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL. Have you considered why people use the GPL? It isn't to stop companies from using their code, it's to stop people from making the code proprietary. There's no clause in the GPL that says "No companies allowed, lol." Companies can (and do) benefit from the work of people who put their code under the GPL.
Just because I care more about assuring the freedom of my users than the "right" of a company to make proprietary software using my code doesn't mean that I don't have basic human decency. I'd argue the opposite, I just don't have basic corporate decency.
> "Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL.
He was arguing for the GPL.
> Have you considered why people use the GPL? It isn't to stop companies from using their code, it's to stop people from making the code proprietary.
That's one reason. Another reason is that they have no choice to choose GPL since maybe they're building on a GPL system.
Another entirely different reason people choose the GPL - to keep customers paying for their services.
Some people also choose the GPL because they just do whatever their peers do. There are lots of reasons, not just the one that you stated.
Also, I would argue that "making the code proprietary" is a very inaccurate phrase. If I take your GPL code, make some changes and then sell it without providing the source code, am I making your code proprietary? No. Because your code is still available. I'd be making a derived work proprietary, not the original code.
> > "Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL.
> He was arguing for the GPL.
Whoops, I guess it was too subtle for me. :P
> Another reason is that they have no choice to choose GPL since maybe they're building on a GPL system.
Fair point, this is what happened to GeoGebra (which has a GPLv3 core, but all of the other stuff is proprietary -- which makes packaging it quite tricky and they seem to contradict themselves in their licensing documents).
> Another entirely different reason people choose the GPL - to keep customers paying for their services.
How would that work? Do you have an example? I would assume that since the person has a program that is under the GPL, they have no obligation to continue paying anyone (unless they require support they cannot do themselves -- but even then they don't need to pay the vendor they can pay any developer).
> Some people also choose the GPL because they just do whatever their peers do.
This is a fair point, but I'd hope the peer pressure is accompanied by some explanation of why that group decided to use the GPL. That reason may or may not be because of user freedom, but at least it would make the developers less like lemmings.
> There are lots of reasons, not just the one that you stated.
I'd argue the other examples are in the minority, but I may be wrong (since I don't have any evidence to back up that assertion).
> Also, I would argue that "making the code proprietary" is a very inaccurate phrase. If I take your GPL code, make some changes and then sell it without providing the source code, am I making your code proprietary? No. Because your code is still available. I'd be making a derived work proprietary, not the original code.
A proprietary fork is still a proprietary version of a free program. Sure, you might argue that since it's a fork it's "less bad", but if the proprietary fork becomes more popular than the original it's an overall blow to free software. Not to mention that that would be a GPL violation.
"Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL. Have you considered why people use the GPL? It isn't to stop companies from using their code, it's to stop people from making the code proprietary. There's no clause in the GPL that says "No companies allowed, lol." Companies can (and do) benefit from the work of people who put their code under the GPL.
Just because I care more about assuring the freedom of my users than the "right" of a company to make proprietary software using my code doesn't mean that I don't have basic human decency. I'd argue the opposite, I just don't have basic corporate decency.