> It's mostly just people complaining that they aren't getting a free lunch.
This sentiment both frustrates and amuses me.
On the one hand, complaining that a GPL-licensed project isn't BSD/MIT-licensed smacks of entitlement - nobody forced the original developer to use a free license, after all, so don't complain.
On the other hand, this sense of entitlement is exactly what the free software movement is all about - according to the FSF, users deserve freedom and nothing less[1].
(The important difference is that users should be entitled to free software as opposed to proprietary software, not one free license over another free license).
Still, anytime I hear people complaining that a project uses one of the GPL licenses instead of a BSD/MIT license, I'm always tempted to remind them that the real alternative was for the original developer to keep the code proprietary... and everyone loses in that situation.
Deserving freedom and deserving free aren't really the same thing though. The FSF is not about entitlement to something, but rather about human rights, or applying the basic principles of trade to software too.
If you buy a house, it's your property, and you can modify it how you want. Similarly, if you buy a car, you can resell it when you want a new one.
Imagine if these purchases came with the same shrinkwraps as proprietary software - that you weren't allowed to sell your home, your car, perhaps not even modify it. Some estate agents might go as far as telling you who can enter your property, and what times you can use the bathroom.
The "free" entitlement that GPL complainers want, is the ability to get a house (or part of) for free, modify and sell it (or put it for rent), and then force the buyer/tennant to sign a contract stating that he may not modify, resell or lease it out.
I wouldn't be too pleased if all construction companies only rented out homes, and it was impossible to buy my own property. The GPL applies that same economic freedom to software - when you buy or otherwise obtain GPL code, you own it - where you only ever "rent" proprietary code.
> Deserving freedom and deserving free aren't really the same thing though. The FSF is not about entitlement to something, but rather about human rights, or applying the basic principles of trade to software too.
Agreed - I was being mostly tongue-in-cheek, and playing on the fact that anything that is expressed as a 'right' implies some sense of entitlement... of course we're 'entitled to our rights'!
Though you're correct that the 'right' to freedom is also justified by the principles of trade as well.
This sentiment both frustrates and amuses me.
On the one hand, complaining that a GPL-licensed project isn't BSD/MIT-licensed smacks of entitlement - nobody forced the original developer to use a free license, after all, so don't complain.
On the other hand, this sense of entitlement is exactly what the free software movement is all about - according to the FSF, users deserve freedom and nothing less[1].
(The important difference is that users should be entitled to free software as opposed to proprietary software, not one free license over another free license).
Still, anytime I hear people complaining that a project uses one of the GPL licenses instead of a BSD/MIT license, I'm always tempted to remind them that the real alternative was for the original developer to keep the code proprietary... and everyone loses in that situation.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html