No, you don't have a good understanding.

You don't know jack about my understanding.

Because you don't need to agree to the GPL to use it.

When people discuss "using" a program, they are usually simply talking about using the program.

When people discuss "using" library code, then yes, often -- in fact, usually -- distribution is implied. When people talk about "using" GPL code and complain they can't, then it's awfully condescending of you to (as you keep doing) assume they don't know what the fuck they are talking about, rather than simply assuming they are writing informally, and in the context of their writing, "use" implies "distribution."

Hell, if you don't want to assume, and don't want to be an asshole, you could just ask, y'know -- "Did you mean utilize all by yourself, or did you mean distribute?"

But that would take all the argument away and not be fun, amirite?

Now if you go and re-read with this simple fact in your head, you might find a completely different take on things.

Yeah, rationality and reading comprehension are such binary things.

Apparently they are.

He was talking about "using" not contributing back.

If you would just apply the tiniest bit of thought to this, you would realize that if he is not allowed to use something (because of other conditions placed on him), there is no reason for him to learn it well enough to contribute back to it. It's a horse-and-cart, or chicken-and-egg thing.

It's called freeloading because not only does he want something for nothing.

How do you know? By your logic, no non-GPL free software could ever be developed.

You don't call users "freeloaders",

They're not.

Well, alrighty then!

you only call people who might be able to contribute back "freeloaders."

No, I call people who want to take the free stuff I've stuck out there and wrap it up inproprietary licenses entirely for free "freeloaders". They want to take, take. take and give nothing back.

Sorry, that doesn't compute. If he admires your stuff and would like to use it, but can't, and lets you know he can't -- he's not a freeloader.

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

Your principles aren't very principled if they include calling people who aren't even using your stuff freeloaders, while not calling people who are using your stuff freeloaders.

You may have noticed the first option, where he was merely ignorant, I sought to correct. If he takes my advice then he'll be fine. I gave two options. He can pick whichever he wants.

No, your "answers" assumed a lot that wasn't in evidence about his motivations and position. It really isn't that black and white in a lot of peoples' worlds.

Also with the LGPL3, the linking condition of which you speak is now gone.

All right, smarty-pants, then what's the point of section 4d0?

Very droll. But to set the record straight on another point, this thread started with:

You can release _your_ code under whatever license you choose, as long as the license doesn't conflict with the GPL as applied to the derivative work as a whole.

it was actually the great Saint RMS himself who started all the FUD about GPL infection, when he forced the guy who wrote common Lisp to change his license to the GPL, merely because common Lisp could dynamically link to readline.

common Lisp didn't need readline. common Lisp didn't ship with readline. But if a customer had both on the same system, common Lisp could utilize readline.

Saint Stallman, at that point having giving up coding himself, had enough time on his hands to harangue people who were coding and didn't really care that much about the license, so the common Lisp guy just gave in.

So if people are spreading what you guys feel is FUD about code coming in contact with GPLed code and being infected, maybe you should take it up with the guy who started it.

You came out in support of the guy...

No, I came out to call out this:

That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.

Which, if you really believe, makes it impossible to have rational conversation with you. The comment about a sociopath is just gravy, showing that you are not interested in real debate.

But your reasons are based on a completely flawed understanding of the GPL

This shows the same thing. So I'll honor that request to not have a real debate, despite the fact that I have an extremely detailed understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the GPL and other licenses, as well.

And just for the record, and to be clear, we were talking about reusing code, not just using code to compile stuff. In that context, "use GCC" means "take GCC code and make it work with my proprietary micro and release it to the world in a way that keeps the PHBs the company I licensed the micro from happy", not "compile x86 code with GCC."

But you knew that, right? Please tell me you knew that all the people who wrote LLVM didn't do so because they were worried that just compiling stuff with GCC would infect their code. You can't be so stupid you think they're all that ignorant, right?

Well, speaking of strawmen... [gstoddardt] only spoke [of people] who indeed want to "steal" GPL code whether or not they actually do.

Yeah, he brought that up himself, in a conversation that wasn't about that at all, so... strawman.

Second, compiling your code with GCC does not infect your source-code, or the compiled binary, with the GPL.

Yeah, and you brought this up in a conversation where... I wasn't claiming that, or the grandparent, or that great-grandparent. So yeah, another strawman. You guys keep it up!

No one owes him anything.

Who said otherwise? Why do you feel compelled to set up a strawman?

It may not matter to the GPL'd code's author whether this guy wants to use it in his own code or not.

That's absolutely true. But it may matter, so it's a great thing for the guy to say "if you do this, I can't use your code." Unless you don't believe in freedom of speech.

There are lots of reasons for writing code.

Sure, and I don't want to discourage anybody from writing code, and if you feel you need to use the GPL to write code, that's great -- do it!

It's (As they say, write your own code) absolutely not a stupid line.

No, it really is. At least in the context you are using it. You don't tell it to users. You're telling it to people who are already writing their own code.

The guy who GPL'd the code wrote it so he can do what he wants with it. That is his right.

Sure it's his right; same as it's the right (free speech and all) of the other guy to say that, for him, that makes the code unusable. "Write your own code" is not an attempt to address the pros and cons of different positions -- it's merely an attempt to shut the argument down.

Surely this other developer can write his own code too?

Exactly. That's what he's doing. And that's part of how LLVM and Toybox come about. And that's why it's stupid to say "write your own code." He's already writing his own fucking code.

Of course GPL'd people don't use that line with end users. After all they are free to use the software however they see fit. That's what the GPL says.

Ah. So the only reason you aren't snarky to end-users is because you're blindly following the religion of the license. Awesome.

As for toybox, llvm, etc. Good for them. Competition is a good thing. LLVM rejuvenated the stagnant GCC project. As for busybox vs toybox, toybox certainly is the better choice if the company doesn't know how to comply with the GPL or is too lazy to do so.

Hey, something we can agree on!

For too long companies thought open source, particularly "free software" mean public domain. It does not, regardless of license.

But this is a strawman in the current context. The upstream poster obviously doesn't believe that. He's not asking to use GPLed software in a way inconsistent with the license. He's telling you that he won't be able to use your software if you use that license, because he won't use it in violation of the license.

There are obligations under copyright law for all source code licenses, even proprietary ones like MS's royalty-free runtime redistribution licenses.

And this is a strawman, too. When somebody says, "if you use this license, I can't use the code" that is a data point, not an indication they are a criminal. Quite the opposite.

The problem is people think the GPL code is some free code they can steal and do anything they want with it.

Ummm, no.

At least not more than anything else.

Yes, there are people not following the terms of the license. Just like there are people not following the terms of other licenses.

But conflating those people with the people who are following the terms of the license -- people who say "Sorry, I can't use GCC, so I have to go play in the LLVM sandbox over here, and btw, if you want me to be able to contribute to projects in the future, the GPL is a non-starter" -- thinking or representing that those saying they cannot use your code are the same people as those illegally using your code -- that is just wrong.

Acting like they're whining when they are merely communicating the reality of their situation, that's not helpful either.

Because those aren't the people violating your license. Those are the people explaining why they are not using your code. And any time you gloss over this difference, you're adding to ignorance, rather than removing it.

Which seems to be a perfectly acceptable technique for many GPL proselytizers, but it's at least as dishonest as a lot of the strawmen you set up to rail against.

Perhaps you meant to say there's a lot of GPL software you'd like to incorporate into your own software but you can't because of the license.

I think he said what he meant to say, e.g. if you're an author, please consider using a different license than the GPL, because some people (e.g. him; yes, people are somewhat narcissistic that way, go figure) won't be able to utilize it otherwise.

And you won't get any sympathy either.

He's not looking for sympathy. He's looking for code. Believe it or not, a lot of this code will spring into existence eventually, and the GPL is actually hurting as much as it helps. Would LLVM exist if it weren't for the GPL, or would those people have worked on GCC? What about toybox vs. busybox?

As they say, write your own code!

This is the stupidest line, and it's uttered by GPL proponents all the fucking time. Why is it stupid? Because you don't tell it to users -- you tell it to programmers who are writing their own code.

The second meaning is that by "use" he means that he wants you to write source code for entirely free for him and not only that, he doesn't even want to contribute by sharing with others as you shared with him.

Completely unimaginative, naive, binary thinking. Is it just possible that someone might like to contribute back -- might even have significant contributions that they can and will make to whatever package they use -- but that for some reason outside their control, they cannot divulge everything they are working on?

I write a lot of open source. Personally, I put all my packages under permissive licenses, because I don't want the people who use them to have to worry about the licenses.

If that's the case he's a wretched freeloader.

See, this kind of name calling is exactly why GPL proponents are often called "communists." You don't call users "freeloaders" -- you only call people who might be able to contribute back "freeloaders." From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs, and all that rot.

Except you're not even doing a very good job of following the communist doctrine -- when somebody tells you that, for reasons outside his control, he cannot utilize GPLed software, instead of trying to help him with his needs, you just harangue him and call him bad names.

That's complete and utter bollocks. Here's my philosophy: I only invest time and effort in things that I can reuse under lots of different forseeable circumstances. This means that I'm more than happy to use complete programs that are GPLed -- because I can always use them as programs under any circumstances (there are no field of use restrictions) -- but I try very hard never to use libraries that are GPLed, because I might invest a lot of time learning and contributing to them, and then not be able to reuse them when I need to.

And the LGPL is a non-starter. The philosophy of contributing back the code is actually fine, and if that were all, I wouldn't even mind making that my default license. But the philosophy of having to distribute unlinked code so that users could relink with a new version, and then having to support that -- that's a fucking nightmare.

Or in this case, it doens't because you're apparently completely ignorant of the GPL.

So if I disagree that the only valid license to use ever is the GPL, it's simply because I'm ignorant of it. Yes, you're just as insane as the guy I just responded to.

I really don't know why I have to repeat this.

Why did you feel compelled to repeat that "pem is ignorant of the GPL"? Does that help your cause? Or maybe that's not what you meant. Does a lack of clarity help your cause?

It's been said in this thread numerous time, repeated in the past many times all over the internet and it's even on the FSF's website.

Repeat after me: repeating something doesn't make it true.

You don't have to agree to the GPL to use the software.

Fine. Point out where I said it did. And then stop being a name-calling dickhead.

There is a huge difference between an interruption (aka NMI) and a diversion (aka the idle loop). One requires context to be saved and restored, and the other doesn't.

Amen, bro!

Tell it!

You must be a sociopath then, or work for one.

I've always envied people who can see the universe in black and white.

It scares the shit out of me whenever they get any sort of power, though.

That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.

Because they prove over and over that they are incapable of rational thought.

A couple of ACs have more than adequately responded to this, and should be modded up, but I will give some specifics:

Fine if you're a commercial site and your client knows your job will take 2-3 weeks and cost a few thousand.

No, this is for small in-house things. For things going out, we do a much better job, with real schematic capture and real layout tools.

If you're just looking for a quick fix, there is no 1-day PCB turnaround under $100.

Sure there is (if you allow a day for shipping). I can get 3 pieces of a miniboard from expresspcb.com for $51 + shipping. IIRC, one-day shipping is a bit over $20, so for $75 I can send off a design before 1:00, and have the boards before 1:00 two days later.

If all you need is 1 print and you're a hobbyist or need something one-off, that is unacceptable.

As I said in my initial email, that depends on whether your time is valuable. In my experience, it takes a lot less total time to get a working prototype with a PCB than without, unless your circuit is very small. So if you can wait a couple of days for your circuit, and you have other things to do in the meantime (e.g. your time is valuable) and you'd like to spend less total time on the board (e.g. your time is valuable), then not laying out a board is unacceptable.

Of course, you can do whatever you want. I've seen people dead-bug 176 pin QFNs and make them work. If you find detailed work like that therapeutic, fine. But if you have other stuff to do, it can quickly become cost-ineffective.