I am building a decentralized community service, where it is critical for each client to run a "legitimate" build version in order for the service to operate properly. The client versions do not have to be identical, but must be guaranteed to be compliant with the service in order to function as ...
I would be very leery of using a service that doesn't have the controls in place to protect my "security, assets, or intellectual property". There are many secure alternatives available that protect me and mine.
@doneal24 well, this is a case of a license level formality, not technical implementation. As it turns out, it is a violation of the GPL to prohibit illicit tampering with software on a license level. The GPL in fact appears to put more restrictions on restricting illicit use by the software's designer than it does on illicit users. Freedom it is, blind and unconditional, even if it ends up taking away far more freedoms than it saves. Kinda makes me feel that the GPL doesn't really care that much about freedom, and it is just a nice word to plaster on its facade.
Under the GPL there is no such thing as illicit tampering. What freedom is lost in this case other than my expectation that my assets and IP should be kept secure? If you don’t want the client software altered, release it in binary form with some kind of copy protection in place.
If it's possible for someone to modify a client programming (e.g. by binary patching or source code modification), and to use a modified "illicit" client to gain unauthorized access to remote resources, that means there is insufficient security on those remote resources.
@Brandin - not the case with decentralized services. It is not client-server, it is more of a p2p - every client is also a server.
"Under the GPL there is no such thing as illicit tampering." yes the GPL doesn't appear to make even the slightest effort to respect and preserve the original author's intent. All it cares about is to spread and ensnare as much users and projects as possible.
@dtech Consider someone doesn't use your client at all, and builds a client completely from scratch to interact with your service in ways the official client doesn't let them? Nothing you do with your licensing can fix this problem, and you might want to consider how to handle that, rather than trying to solve this with licensing.
@user1937198 it is not about solving this with licensing, it is about provisioning that on every level - from license, through user agreement and all the way to implementation. Better be thorough about such things IMO. But also - it is about whether the GPL steps forward to defend the freedom of criminals to commit crime when that's the sole restriction.
Some levels are just not worth solving. Solve this at the technical level, and let users modify their clients in ways that don't impact the network. Otherwise, whats the point in using the GPL vs a source available license? It sounds like you want to claim to be open source, without actually being open source rather than source available.
@user1937198 It is not a matter of wanting to use GPL, it is about lack of other tangible options to target specific platforms. The good old "being forced to" which lies at the primordial core of GPL.
@dtech Which platforms require GPL? If so that is a contentious choice of those platforms to require you to let there uses make changes without any restrictions from you in the changes they can make. They want that for their users. If you are unwilling to provide that freedom, they would rather not have you on their platform.
@user1937198 Qt for webassembly, it is only available under GPL and a ridiculously overpriced commercial license I cannot afford, making GPL the only viable option. A departure from the LGPL licensing available for most Qt modules, and a shameless money grab extortion scheme.
You have the alternative of developing your own toolkit. If it wasn't for the GPL and the restrictions it poses on keeping the source code openly available and upstream-able, that toolkit would likely only be available under the expensive commercial license. GPL is based on a principle of shared contributions of software. By establishing your approval requirements, you put your software in a position of privilege vs all other projects that might want to use part of your code.
@user1937198 the GPL was created as opposition to proprietary software. Today, the biggest users and profiteers off GPL code are precisely the big tech corporations that have ensnared the world in proprietary software. Today GPL is in bed with the very thing it was created to oppose. Goes to show... its plague like nature scared developers off proprietary platform alternatives even after there were technically feasible options. The GPL might well have played a central role in cementing the dominance of proprietary software and big tech monopolies with awful business practices. Well done GPL!
@Topcode tends to happen with things that are hopelessly stuck in their ways. Not a good place to be when it also constitutes a total failure to achieve its core goals.
"The GPL in fact appears to put more restrictions on restricting illicit use by the software's designer than it does on illicit users." - How can it? The GPL imposes no restrictions on the copyright holders, after all. Anyway, after reading all the comments, this is starting to seem more like an anti-GPL rant to me, than an actual question...
@marcelm it practically imposes a blanket restriction to restrict disregarding the reasons why. Restriction to restrict is still a restriction. The question is as it is, the rest is responses to comments. Pardon me for having a personal opinion that does not boil down to unconditional praise.
@dtech No, it doesn't; because copyright holder can release under any license they see fit. You could release it under something GPL-like but with your added restrictions. Of course, if you use the actual GPL, you must comply by its terms. But you don't have to use the GPL if you're the copyright holder. (And yes, using Qt will force you to use GPL, but that's really a beef with Qt, not so much the GPL)
@dtech No, because you (presumably) are not the copyright holder of the code you are linking against; e.g. Qt. If you are the copyright holder of Qt, you can link against it without using the GPL, correct.
@marcelm and thus GPL restrictions not to restrict use are imposed upon me. Just like you previously claimed they weren't. I get it, you like GPL, but that's no reason to misrepresent it.
@dtech One of your comments confuses me. The biggest users of GPL code are big tech companies who use it to develop proprietary software. If that were true, why could you not follow their example and incorporate Qt in you application?
What you want is not compatible with the GPL or the definition of free and open-source software and arguing with people here won't change that fact. If you think the GPL should be changed, you can take your arguments to the FSF. If you think the Open Source Definition should be changed, you can go argue with the OSI. If you just want to rant about the GPL, that's off-topic here.
Discussion on question by dtech: Does…
Discussion on question by dtech: Does…