I find a lot of GPL applications to be low quality, half assed works, as no one is paid to work on these programs since GPL sets a price monopoly of zero dollars on the product.

But there are some high quality GPL apps out there.

It's just that when people are paid to work on products, you get super high quality software such as say, oh I don't know, Adobe graphics editing tools such as photoshop, adobe pdf reader (acrobat). Compare that to the absolute sh(t tools on unix that are GPL'd such as the old ghostscript reader or clunky GIMP.

Now, paid software does end up producing Bloatware and featuritis though, whereas BSD tools remain simple without as many knobs and featuritis.

But a sh*t tool like midnight commander at the command prompt is just no comparison to a paid product like Total Commander which is by far superior in all ways to going back to the dark ages and using a text mode norton commander gpl program... But then again, you have a GPL'd Double Commander which is a very nice tool. See the problem with Double Commander is it violates its own license. Double Commander allows you to load pretty much any Total Commander plugin, and that itself is a violation of the GPL because those plugins are not GPL, (many of them) and therefore you are violating the GPL by loading non gpl compatible plugin dll's... So if double commander was just a "Do anything the f*ck you want with it" license, such as bsd/mit, then there would be no violation, hence the superiority of a truly free license like mit/bsd.

All the little double commander users (myself included) are constantly violating every single word and line in the GPL by loading non gpl compatible total commander plugins, but no one cares, because GPL violations happen every single day, thousands of them, and people actually use GPL software more like bsd/mit software - just no one actually reports these violations nor gives a flying sh*t or a flying f*ck..

Yeah, in practice, everyone uses GPL code as if it was bsd/mit licensed.

Another example is THE INTERNET, where all gpl code on the internet is hidden from site. Businesses use gpl code to run their website software programs and never release any of the gpl code and keep it secret from you on their servers, because apparently according to the Great Richard Stallman, you can ship your web program to people without releasing the source since it is just a pipe of text, but any time you pipe stuff over X11 you have to release the sources. It's called hypocrisy...

Or, some call it "GNG is Not GNU"

No offenses intended to you personally, it's just that most people do not actually understand the GPL and are using all this GPL'd code as if it was bsd/mit licensed, when really it's not.

Double Commander is the perfect example of where GPL cripples the application and people do not even realize it, because they just go ahead and violate the GPL and don't care. Any time anyone loads a non gpl compatible plugin into double commander, which they do daily.. they are violating the gpl. If it was bsd/mit licensed, there would be no worry, you'd just do whatever the f*ck you want and get on with life :-)

That's what I call freedom.

But as for the actual criminal gang stalkers who write GPL code such as the openbsd developers.... Let's just say that people who write good code, are not necessarily the best people to actually have personal relationships with in real life. I don't know about freebsd developers or dragonflybsd developers or mozilla/gpl developers. Basically all humans deserve hell roast for being socially inept.

I said, I am not a zealot ;)

I use GIMP and it works for me for what I need it to do.

I use MC and it works for me for what I need to do.

I use versions included in my daily driver OS (Debian (still) Wheezy with Backports...) and they work for me for what I do ;)

The only non-canon program in my daily driver, is the Firefox ;) because Debian Policy is stupid here :J other than that I use what's provided and it works for me.

:)

lol :)

-L.

(comments in line)

Not entirely true, gpl is restrictive, yes, but it doesn't restrict your ability to use a gpl program, and that includes selling said program. The gpl does not restrict anyone from charging for a program, they only state that source code must be made available for no cost (or for no more than the cost of the actual work it takes to make it available). There's nowhere in the gpl that states you can't charge for a program.

Agreed, there are some very high quality gpl programs, (the entire linux kernel is gpl after all).

Sorry to say being paid to work on software doesn't make that software better. I've seen some pretty crappy paid software in my time. I've even paid for some of it, and wasn't the least bit pleased to find it literal junk. Just because you pay for something doesn't mean it's worth what you paid for it.

But, the gpl specifically allows for linking (and even distributing) other code into a gpl program. Even if that code itself isn't gpl, the license still allows you to link other parts into the application and use it without violations. It does specifically talk about linking your gpl code into non gpl programs, but it says nothing about linking non gpl code into a gpl program, other than to say in general terms that those additions may not be covered by the gpl.

I'm no gpl expert, but reading the gpl seems to indicate that these things are all possibledo not violate the gpl. Since most license agreements say you may use version (x) or any later version, and looking at the gpl (version 3) seems to address all of these issues in generic enough terms that I think you're getting all tied up in knots for no reason. Admittedly, the gpl version 2 was a bit more restrictive, but I'm not seeing any conflicts with version 3. It's possible I misread something, since (like I said), I'm no expert, but in general, I see no conflicts here.

I haven't run across that particular piece of wisdom, I have no idea why piping anything across x11 would change anything, but the reason most folks don't release their programs is because most of those businesses using gpl code to run their websites don't actually make any changes to the web server, and therefore, aren't required to release anything. Of those who do make changes, I've heard it stated that as long as the code isn't meant for public consumption, it also doesn't need to be released back. I'm not sure I agree with this particular line of defense, but I've seen that particular argument more than once, and it appears to be ok with the powers that be, so who am I to argue with it.

But, in summary, charging for gpl code is ok, linking code into gpl programs appears to be ok, as long as the linked in code isn't part of the original program, and isn't distributed with it. Linking a gpl library into an existing non gpl program seems to be a problem though, and those types of setups should use the lgpl to cover the library/code in question.
all the salient points.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus