On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:26:43AM -0400, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
After decades with no apparent change in arguments or hope for resolution, I find the whole debate elitist and entertainingly stagnant. Reminds me of candy <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0QpPNcT-J4> advertisements <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0>.
As is common in religious debates, the two sides tend to come from different mindsets and don't even get what the other is saying. I find the two approaches complementary rather than in opposition.
Want to do it for the improvement of society? Great. Want to do it to improve efficiency, reduce bugs and involve a broader talent pool? Also great. Just do it. By and large the paths are the same.
What has more-recently astounded me about the binary nature of the debate is that it has ignored a third aspect that challenges the other two -- cloud-based software. The GPL does not require you to release your modified source if you don't redistribute your code at all. A cloud service thus can use software under even the most "viral" licenses without worry because the result is only actually executed on computers wholly under its control.
While people still argue about closed MS-Word versus open LibreOffice, they ignore Google Docs -- Is that open or closed? Can its developers incorporate GPL software while wholly circumventing the FSF's social goals? This paradigm needs to be addressed but IMO has been largely ignored for an assortment of reasons.
I believe the answer is that yes they can. This appears to be why the AGPL license exists as per this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html -- Len Sorensen