If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?
Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and "stealing" are used by many.
However, when we are talking about copyright infringement, I am instantly corrected when I try to use those words to describe essentially the exact same practice?? (people here have even said it is their 'right' to freely copy copyrighted material).
"If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?"
So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act.
The GNU is just Stallman's attempt to destroy the commercial software industry, tie up our courts with ridiculous GNU violations, and essentially socialize it (a few years back, he had goals of the GNU and one of them is to have a 'compliance officer' mandated by the government in each company). I'm glad most of these attempts have failed.
Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.
Your claim is "Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. If commercial software can't function without being free, then that's its problem" - where one is the very exact opposite of the other. "He doesn't want to kill it. But if it can't survive without being something it's inherently the opposite of, well, that's not us seeking its death, but rather 'a problem of their business model'." Hmm.
I should point out, that so far you are the only one in this conversation to use the word "theft", and the word "steal[ing]" was only used by one other commenter (who was not replying to you at all). (At least, this is true as of the 178 comment mark).
All software licenses at their core rely on some sort of copyright, including the GPL as well as proprietary licenses. This is at the heart, I believe, of what the parent poster meant by "Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?".
And as someone who both uses, and creates GPL code - let me assure you, it is most definitely not a "lure" to get companies to use it and then "release proprietary code".
So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act.
I don't think the parent post was saying it was all about giving and happiness. Nor do I, at least not directly. People spent time, money, etc.. creating code to release under a specific license. The license is clear, and well-known. It is not unreasonable to request that people respect the license when using the code. The reason why they chose the license isn't all that relevant, to be honest, when it comes to the validity of it.
It is clear that you don't like or respect the GPL very much; that is fine, and the appropriate option is the one you espoused: don't use it. I'm not sure I understand all your hostility, however.
I don't see where paulhauggis is claiming he's entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions. Can you point out that claim explicitly for me? (edit: removed a stray nonsensical "it" for clarity)
> If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it.
This is what I generally do when it comes to GPLed libraries. Even closed source APIs generally grant me more "freedom" as a developer in how I redistribute my own programs invoking those APIs.
But hey, it's their right to release GPLed software. I make use of some GPLed software (generally only as a user, not a developer) and thank their developers for their contributions.
...but I don't think it's outrageous to find their definition of "free" a little odd, I get why it can be hard to follow their line of reasoning, and don't see the harm in trying to dig into the reasoning behind using the GPL over, say, a more permissive license such as MIT. Personally, I'm more inclined to release under permissive licenses - but this is your chance to convince paulhauggis of the merits of the former, no?