A Visual Guide to the GPL License

It's not a guide but an opinion piece.

> Without resorting to loaded words like “freedom.”

> I do like the idea of people modifying and selling my software. That would validate my programmer ego rather than make me feel ripped off.

Whatever. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This describes the GPL license, version 1, from 1989. Is there any significant software that's still using GPLv1-only? Otherwise, I feel describing v2 and v3 would be more informative.

TLDR: As _nalply says, not a guide but an extremely biased opinion piece, or IMO rather an apparently deliberate attempt to cast the GPL in the worst light possible without worrying about little things like accuracy or background.

---

> Sure, I would like to be able to share and change software. But guess what? I can already share and change any object in my possession — even if not allowed by the manufacturer — so long as I maneuver around the fuzzy boundaries of the law and avoid bringing attention to myself.

That you can get away with ignoring copyright is a rather flimsy argument against a license that exists to ensure that you're legally allowed to share/modify software.

> I also reserve the right to put a sizable number of people at the mercy of some of my software to make a large profit if I so desire.

Okay, then you probably shouldn't use GPL-family licenses, since they exist to avoid anyone being at your mercy.

> This confirms my previous suspicion: You do not have complete “freedom” to change GPL-licensed software. “Freedom” seems to be a loose term here.

Correction: You do not have the ability to relicense the software. You can modify it all the same. And in any event, copyleft licenses impose the restriction that you can't limit other people's freedom; while this is arguably a restriction on your freedom, it's a good trade-off.

> I don’t even know if “copyright” is a valid term anymore in the times of the internet. Anyone can publish for free to the entire world. It’s not like you need authorization to get something to the printing press. [...] First, the lack of a warranty should be enough to convey the absence of a warranty. There is no need for a piece of paper saying that there is no warranty.

I'm going to gently suggest that maybe if you have no concept of the underlying legal concepts and practices that drove a license, you should hold off remarking on it until you do. My non-lawyer understanding is that the warranty thing absolutely has been a problem in some jurisdictions, and copyright is a very-much-alive legal concept.

---

And after that I gave up; the author seems to feel that a "humorous", "tongue-in-cheek" post need not worry about accuracy, context, or good faith, and it got to be more than I felt like dealing with.