The spying scandals are bad enough on their own. Adding Aaron's death into the mix just muddles the message and confuses people who are less informed.
I should point out that I don't think Aaron should have been hounded to his death (tho' equally if he were mentally ill, anything could have pushed him over the edge). But that doesn't make what he did right. It has for 20 years baffled me that people can demand respect for the GPL et al but be happy to ride roughshod over anyone else's licenses.
But even disregarding that, I don't get why you are baffled: The GPL is a hack intended to spread freedoms. Many who support the GPL do not support it out of some desire to respect IP laws, but as a means of reducing the use of more restrictive licenses. E.g. to maximise access to knowledge or maximise the ability to modify and use data.
Wanting the data in JSTOR freed up, possibly regardless of copyright status, is entirely consistent with supporting the GPL in those cases.
For some this is a moral or ethical issue - it is perfectly possible to consider the current state of copyright an immoral restriction of personal freedoms.
The purpose of the GPL is not to prevent people from modifying and building on the code. The purpose... well, let me quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html :
There are four freedoms that every user should have:
the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
the freedom to share the changes you make.
Only if distributing software without its source was also made illegal.
WTF?!? No way! (although to be fair I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "use of code").
Companies would still be free to "protect" their code through secrecy: releasing only the compiled version and not the source code
This is exactly what the GPL is designed to avoid.
As you quoted above "the freedom to change the software to suit your needs" - that requires the source code!
...sort of. Source code access is important, sure, but here are a few more important issues that are basically orthogonal:
* The right to redistribute software
* The right to modify software (without source code?!?! Sure; imagine if I took Windows, removed the license protection code, and distributed that copy to you).
* The right to use software -- this, incredibly, can be a problem:
http://jalopnik.com/192843/robot-let-my-car-go-new-jersey-ga...
I'm not saying it is a realistic possibility in today's world, but it is not as though the copyright system is the only system we could have.
Nothig. But then, a company wouldn't have the entire governemnt's power to persue and extract money from people using their software. It's a completely different equilibrium, you can't just look at one side of it.
And I'm not saying it's a good thing either. Altough I defend that it's not smart to depend ("depend" excludes games, by the way) on proprietary software, I never tought it was immoral to create it, until the NSA scandal. Now I don't have any firm opinion about it.
There are many, myself included, who would be happy with this endgame. As long as no one can ever be prosecuted for creating a work, I am happy.
The GPL is needed because of the effects of copyright, not vice versa.
You can do this even with IP... if you're building SaaS instead of shrinkwrap, due to the GPL's most relevant restrictions here all hinging on the act of distribution of the actual software.
Without IP, there can neither be GPL (which licenses IP rights) nor close source proprietary (which is another model of licensing IP rights).
It's similar in essence to forbidding slavery — some rhetorician might suggest that it abridges people's freedom to own each other, but the actual intent is to preserve a greater amount of freedom.
I'm pretty sure the TSA also thinks its restrictions on air travel lead to greater freedom of mobility.
No! The GPL and it's ilk are not and never have been about restrictions that in practice prevent people from monetizing software. When are people going to get that? The source code has to be supplied. You can still charge for access to it. I could make $KILLERAPP and charge $1000 for it, and not allow it to be public, but as long as when a customer buys it, I give them access to the source, I'm still GPL compliant.
Yeah yeah, this is where you go off about "in practice". Still wrong. In practice it doesn't prevent anything, in fact is is the practices used by companies (and people) that prevent them from using GPL, not the other way around.
You're glazing over a lot of practical issues. For example, if you charge money for a product you are distributing under the GPL, once it has been purchased once, nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse.
Can you think of even one GPL product that has been successful through sales of GPL licenses? Because I really can't. In practice, companies that make money from GPL software almost never make their money from selling the software.
Actually yes, I can think of a quite a few. Redhat is a good example of a huge industry built around GPL software.
That really isn't the point though, and allow me to summarize your misconception.
"nobody else needs to purchase it because the first customer can simply give it away to everyone for free and you have no recourse."
Explain to me how this applies to GPL and not the BSD, (I doubt you can) and you will see how (at least this particular) argument is flawed.
The only companies that make money on software containing GPL'd code are doing it server-side with pre-GPLV3 or AGPL'd code. I've worked at a lot of companies that used and created open source software; and the rules are invariably the same: No GPL'd software allowed into the source tree, period.
That's only different if you are selling other people's software. If so, why should anybody have any simpaty?
The discussion is about whether someone could run a business that is every bit as financially successful as a business that sells proprietary software, by asking for money for GPL software, and not having any other sources of income. Some posters seem to think this is feasible; I would disagree.
Is such abuse the most effective way to reach financially success? Maybe. Does it matter?
No you wouldn't. The GPL doesn't allow you to restrict the end user's ability to redistribute it. That "not allow it to be public" clause violates that.
You just said that the GPL doesn't prevent people from doing anything that is allowed by the GPL, therefore the GPL doesn't prevent anything. Like, that is literally the argument you just used. Just sayin'.
Yup, definitely stopping people from monetizing software!
Taken from wikipedia:
Negative rights are permissions not to do things,
or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction
is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right
as an entitlement to "non-interference" such as a
right against being assaulted.
Rights considered negative rights may include civil and
political rights such as freedom of speech, private property,
freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus,
a fair trial, and freedom from slavery.
GPL might have been about freedom at the time when it was introduced. Nowadays I and most businesses are scanning every piece of software for GPL in order to verify whether it is free.
I'm not saying that I would not contribute it non-GPL software. I do not mind companies closing their products.
However, GPL people do mind companies closing their software. So, those companies not using GPL libraries, no matter how useful is perfectly OK result.
I doubt they'll miss a few people who don't appreciate the issues being conflated, if doing so gains them some of the anti-SOPA folks who are willing to act.
Even when it came to fighting SOPA, much of the motivated base was under-informed and dealing in half-truths, exaggerations, fallacious arguments, etc.
But it worked.