Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Dealing with blind hatred for the GPL

[Aaron Wolf]

On 02/27/2016 04:44 AM, Fabio Pesari wrote:
> Many people (especially in the open source community) hate the GPL more
> than they hate proprietary software, especially the GPLv3. I never found
> an approach that works with those people.
> 
> Mention "freedom" and they'll say the GPL is "restrictive" and "viral".
> 
> Mention practical advantages and they'll say "corporations don't touch
> anything GPL".
> 
> Mention the dangers of proprietary software and they'll say it doesn't
> matter if the program in question is practically better.
> 
> Mention existing famous GPL projects and they'll argue that some of them
> didn't switch to GPLv3 (like Linux and Blender).
> 
> Actually, mentioning the GPL at all will get you covered with insults
> and accusations of zealotry.
> 
> Showing them articles from GNU.org doesn't work, and will only result in
> ad hominem attacks against their author, Richard Stallman.
> 
> This reminds me of Two Minutes Hate from 1984.
> 
> How to reason with those people? They tend to gang up and it's very hard
> to get your point across when everybody is agreeing with one another on
> how stupid and brainwashed you are!
> 

It's pretty simple: if they think proprietary licenses are okay, then
it's hypocritical to say the GPL is bad. In no sense at all does GPL
have more restrictions than proprietary. So, you can simply say "this
GPL software, you would be okay with it just being proprietary, right?
You don't think that's bad? Well, GPL is just the copyright holder
choosing to give the General Public extra permissions. You could argue
that you think they should go to a permissive license, but if you think
proprietary is okay, you have to accept that GPL is okay too."

I've never had a conversation with anyone in which they had any retort
or reply to this at all. Either the conversation becomes productive
because they accept this (maybe they start talking about how they do
prefer permissive licenses, but they agree that people have full right
to use GPL), or they just disappear.

The bigger context surrounding these issues works like this: you can
talk to open-minded people about Linux as GPL and robust vs BSD being
permissive and getting co-opted by Apple and otherwise more obscure, and
you can talk about your *personal* reasons that you like GPL with
*concrete* examples, and then it becomes more about sharing personal
feelings than about trying to argue from principles.

In some cases, the person wants to blame the GPL for the fact that their
lawyers at their company are incompetent and won't let them use some GPL
or AGPL software. You can say things like "yes, I understand that in
your case, things would be better if the software were permissive;
they'd also be better if your lawyers were more reasonable. In this
case, it's the lawyers who deserve to be blamed for their
unreasonableness, not the GPL."

And in the end, you should acknowledge that the GPL is a tactical
license that isn't flawless and has trade-offs, and that it's *okay* for
them to dislike it. They just shouldn't be hypocrites and suggest that
proprietary software is okay but GPL is not.

Finally, join the fsf-community-team email list (the Rapid Response)
list, and get back up from lots of free software supporters to help
argue the case for GPL and to convince these critics that they do *not*
clearly represent the majority. Just make sure to always encourage our
community to stay respectful and reasonable in how we comment.

Cheers,
Aaron