Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages

[Fabio Pesari]

On 02/29/2016 11:27 AM, Yui Hirasawa wrote:
> What do you think would be a good way to counter the argument "GPL
> restricts developers" ?
> 
> I don't think it's a restriction that you have to share your
> modifications. If anything it enables your upstream, the other
> downstreams from that and the downstreams from you.
> 
> 
> This is somehting I said on reddit recently:
> 
> If I tell you that you can give me hug if you also pat me on the back
> while doing it, am I restricting your freedom to hug me?

The "pat on your back" affects only the person receiving the pat, but
copyleft affects everyone. Also, a "pat" is not a visually strong image,
while causing all derivatives to be GPled is very strong.

A more apt metaphor would be to give someone a cake along with its
recipe and ask them to share the recipe with everyone who, having tasted
the cake, asks for it, even if they modify the recipe.

Arguing with developers is really hard. Here is the most common response
they give:

"Look, I love the *idea* of free software, but I need to feed my family,
and GPL software doesn't let me do that because companies would stop
supporting me the moment I adopt it. Developers gotta eat too."

The best possible answer would be:

"That is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy. And besides, there is
nothing inherent to the nature of the GPL that would prevent you from
earning money: the companies are the ones to blame if they don't want to
fund development of GPL software."

But that doesn't work in real life, because people will side with the
developer and call you a zealot who lives in a dream world and point out
to many examples of GPL software failing to support its developers.
The truth is that until we figure out crowdfunding (and I hope Aaron
Wolf will, as soon as possible), this kind of answer will always work,
because it is logically wrong, but factually right.

Take a look at GIMP, for example. It's one of the most popular free
programs out there but despite that, its funding and maintenance is just
pathetic compared to Photoshop.

That is entirely _our fault_, those who oppose free software are
completely right about it.