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

[Michael Lamb]

(Sorry for the duplicate message Fabio, re-posting to the list.)

I've experienced similar frustration talking with people about the GPL.

The most frustrating responses are when I talk with GPL-haters who I
know and respect as developers, who are otherwise nice and care for
others, and whose other political positions agree with mine. That
situation forbids me the luxury of exclaiming "what an idiot!" and
abandoning the discussion. They've somehow reasoned themselves into a
position opposing GPL, genuinely thinking theirs is the best way to do
things, and I can't conclude "they're a sociopath who only cares about
themself."

I have found it productive to try to explore their rationale until we
discover a point at which our opinions diverge. Some of what I've
encountered:

Misinformation. A depressingly large number of people who I've
disagreed with eventually reveal that they've never read the licenses
they criticize. They're just parroting what influential leaders in
their community have told them, that made sense at the time.

There have been supporters of copyright abolition, who believe that
all use of copyright is unethical. We've discussed that recently. :) I
suspect it's a reaction to the copyright abuses of the RIAA and MPAA
and ridiculous death+70 year copyright terms, when a better solution
would be short copyright terms. (I believe copyright is good at
protecting the interests of creative individuals against the rich and
powerful who would exploit them... if it only had sane limits.)

"It's complicated and developers regret the choice later on." Example:
Someone creates a GPL website maintenance system, but is unaware of
the need for a permissive license exception for the JavaScript in its
output templates. ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS )
GPL-haters claim that the GPL then "infects" the pages output by the
system and swear off its use (or convince them to re-license the whole
thing with a pushover license.) This is happening with Pelican, and I
don't see a license exception for Wordpress or Drupal so I'm not sure
if the same argument could be wielded against them too, or not. (
https://github.com/getpelican/pelican/issues/1397 )

One person I frequently argue with seems to be fine with "weak
copyleft," but rejects the mechanism by which a whole work is covered
by GPL when combined with GPL code. "If I obey the license for the
code you wrote (as if it were LGPL'd), what gives you any moral rights
over the code I wrote?"

> Mention "freedom" and they'll say the GPL is "restrictive" and "viral".

I like to focus on the four freedoms offered by all free software
licenses (including pushover licenses), and then describe how the
(A)GPL is the best *protector* of those freedoms.

> Mention practical advantages and they'll say "corporations don't touch
> anything GPL".

This is sadly becoming more and more true; the more pushover-licensed
software exists, the more corporations can issue blanket statements
forbidding copyleft. I think this needs to be countered with a
propaganda campaign showing how copyleft can be better for business
than pushover, without reference to end user freedoms (that greedy
corporations care nothing about).

> Mention the dangers of proprietary software and they'll say it doesn't
> matter if the program in question is practically better.

There's been a new meme gaining popularity, citing the historically
poor "user experience" of free software, compared to that of
well-funded proprietary software: "If the user can't use the software,
the freedoms it provides are useless." I tend to agree that this makes
sense, and conclude that software freedom is necessary but not
sufficient to give the user freedom. GPL-haters however argue that
free software fails users, and well-funded proprietary software better
serves them. (Example: "It's fine that Slack is proprietary, because
it's a vast improvement over the experience of using IRC, the
communities are better and more welcoming.") (I know that's about
services, not programs, but the sentiment is the same.)

> Mention existing famous GPL projects and they'll argue that some of them
> didn't switch to GPLv3 (like Linux and Blender).

There is of course Linus' defense of the GPL2. "What about
tivoization? I don't care if companies do it, if people don't like it
they just won't buy their products." (Heavily paraphrased.) This
infuriates me. How's that working out for us, eh? I probably have six
different manufacturer-abandoned devices in my home with critical
security flaws that I can't fix, that a GPL3 Linux would have
remedied.

> 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

I think they're too long; for Internet argument with people who are
already prone to saying "I don't have time to care about licenses" we
need bumper-sticker sized defenses, that then perhaps link to GNU
articles for more information.

I know I've suggested this before and then failed to act on it (for
lack of time) but I think it would be good to enumerate/categorize
each of these common fallacious critiques of the GPL on the
libreplanet wiki, one per page, so they can be easily responded to,
and our best responses can be iteratively refined. You can then say to
the person "I've heard that many times before, here's a concise
statement showing the flaws. [link]"

> and will only result in
> ad hominem attacks against their author, Richard Stallman.

This can be certainly frustrating but to a rational, unconvinced
observer in your audience, I think that weakens their own argument.

> 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!

I find it useful to remember: if you're arguing with a in a public
forum, your job is _not_ to convince the other person, but instead to
convince those among the audience who remain undecided. The best way
to do that is by calmly and politely refuting misinformation with
evidence. Demonstrate how our position is well-reasoned and protects
against specific harms, and how theirs is based on poor assumptions or
misinformation, or show that their argument only works when someone
shares their particular values and presumptions (like: companies won't
screw over an individual, profit is more important than the end user's
freedom, etc.)

I think this is a very important discussion because silicon valley
startups love pushover-licensed software and what the "open source"
idea has done to free software.

It's all too easy to convince someone who doesn't know any better:
"See how simple the MIT license is? Freedom for everybody, no
headaches, it's obviously best." I think it's very important for us to
get out in front of this with _specific descriptions_ of how
permissive licenses are abused to hurt users. This attitude seems to
be the "new normal" among young programmers and many tech communities
(Ruby, Javascript.)

This venture capitalist has become quickly popular due to her efforts
to find ways to better fund "open source" projects (to benefit the
venture capital funded startups that rely on them), and recently wrote
this "history" positing the idea of a "post open source" generation
who no longer care about licensing:
https://medium.com/@nayafia/we-re-in-a-brave-new-post-open-source-world-56ef46d152a3

I'm worried that she's correct about the shift in attitude toward
licensing, even if she's disastrously wrong that it's a natural
progression that should be embraced rather than countered. It's what
happens when a generation of programmers have grown up listening to
claims about "open source" promoted by fantastically wealthy startup
CEOs of companies they want to work for or run. And I'm sure tech
companies who want to control their users are salivating over it just
as much as they are the "post-pc era" (the ed of "tinkerability").

I apologize that I turned this into a disorganized ramble.