Hacker News Reader

Comment by duck2 | Hacker News Reader

The tone of the article is very disturbing. I would think not supporting the GPL is a deadly sin if I did not know about open source licenses.

Furthermore, as it is mentioned, one person's article does not automatically determine the foundation's stance, especially if they "quietly removed" it.

Are there FSF snipers waiting around for anyone pointing out that their license is viral and restrictive?

View on HN

I don't think anybody disputes that the GPL is viral and restrictive. The debate is about whether or not that's a bad thing.

Or maybe we disagree with using those particular terms, because of their negative connotations, even though we agree that the effect that they describe exist.

The GPL is a political statement, i.e. a matter of opinion and choice. Moreover, it didn't kill anybody so far, so it's not exactly questionable on that side. Therefore, it can't be good or bad. The question is simply does one agree with it or not...

I dispute both of those things. The GPL is neither viral nor restrictive.

The code might be Free™, but the developers who want to use it are very much restricted in what they can use the code for.

I guess it depends on if you think code, like corporations, should have personhood.

>I guess it depends on if you think code, like corporations, should have personhood.

I don't get this analogy.

They can use it for whatever the hell they like.

It's distribution that comes with responsibilities as well as rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com