4 ms·

The GPL is a cancerous license, and Ballmer had to trash open source. That was their business model and they were using the OSS association against Novell. Edi

by debacle 11y ago

The GPL is a cancerous license, and Ballmer had to trash open source. That was their business model and they were using the OSS association against Novell. Edit: For those of you downmodding me for saying that the GPL is a cancerous license, please understand that this isn't a negative connotation - it's simply an aspect of the requirements of the license. It's very likely a good thing, and part of the reason that Linux is doing well while BSDs have languished.

yarrel 11y ago
The GPL isn't "cancerous. If you must use a negative biological term to do the work of smearing it, try "congenital".
Touche 11y ago
> It's very likely a good thing, and part of the reason that Linux is doing well while BSDs have languished. You're mistaken if you believe that.
- Spivak 11y ago
  Hey, you're not wrong. Linus used the GPLv2 only because it allowed him to get patches back into the kernel. He's neither a fan of the FSF nor the GPLv3 because of their philosophy on software freedom. Linux is by far more popular for developers, tinkerers, and cool software projects but BSD is still massive in the server and embedded devices space.
  - belorn 11y ago
    Massive for servers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Public_servers_on_the_Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... BSD is a minority in servers, which also reflect my own experience talking with other sysadmins in conferences. Debian and Redhat are huge in the server market, outside of windows shops. Some older system might have novel or a BSD system running together with massive amount of legacy perl scripts, but those companies also complain that they have a hard time finding new employees that can support the old systems.
scardine 11y ago
It is not cancerous, it is just infectious. And not by accident, it is by design. I used to like GPL, so nobody would "steal" my code adding it to a closed source product. I don't care anymore, just use BSD or other credit-where-credit-is-due license: my code was included in a high profile closed source product? Lots of bragging points and free publicity!
Aldo_MX 11y ago
The GPL is not a cancerous license, if I would use a negative adjective to describe it, it would be: misused. I understand when people wants to keep making FOSS better by releasing entire projects with a GPL license, but I don't understand when people release simple stuff such as a code example with a GPL license...
- debacle 11y ago
  The GPL is a cancerous license. If you use GPLed code, your code must (almost always) become GPLed, thus the GPLed codebase grows. If a GPLed project use other OSS code, it tends to be able to keep those changes, but the opposite can't generally be reciprocated (You can't take GPLed aspects of Linux and port them to a project under the BSD license without changing the license of that software). This is not a bad thing. It sometimes sucks, but overall it's helped preserve the ecosystem and it has been integral, IMHO, in making sure companies stay honest with their upstream OSS meal tickets.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    > This is not a bad thing. Which is why cancer is not a good metaphor.
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      Way to quote selectively there. "It sometimes sucks" occurs more frequently for many people than many would like to admit. I work for a company that uses a ton of open source and open sources a ton of its own technology. Even for us, the GPL is poison. We're not allowed to touch GPL code. And we're not alone in this sentiment. A large number of open source enthusiasts decry the viral nature of the GPL, precisely because it has unpleasant properties common with cancer.
      - belorn 11y ago

by debacle 11y ago

yarrel 11y ago

The GPL isn't "cancerous. If you must use a negative biological term to do the work of smearing it, try "congenital".

Touche 11y ago

> It's very likely a good thing, and part of the reason that Linux is doing well while BSDs have languished. You're mistaken if you believe that.

Spivak 11y ago
Hey, you're not wrong. Linus used the GPLv2 only because it allowed him to get patches back into the kernel. He's neither a fan of the FSF nor the GPLv3 because of their philosophy on software freedom. Linux is by far more popular for developers, tinkerers, and cool software projects but BSD is still massive in the server and embedded devices space.
- belorn 11y ago
  Massive for servers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Public_servers_on_the_Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... BSD is a minority in servers, which also reflect my own experience talking with other sysadmins in conferences. Debian and Redhat are huge in the server market, outside of windows shops. Some older system might have novel or a BSD system running together with massive amount of legacy perl scripts, but those companies also complain that they have a hard time finding new employees that can support the old systems.

scardine 11y ago

It is not cancerous, it is just infectious. And not by accident, it is by design. I used to like GPL, so nobody would "steal" my code adding it to a closed source product. I don't care anymore, just use BSD or other credit-where-credit-is-due license: my code was included in a high profile closed source product? Lots of bragging points and free publicity!

Aldo_MX 11y ago

The GPL is not a cancerous license, if I would use a negative adjective to describe it, it would be: misused. I understand when people wants to keep making FOSS better by releasing entire projects with a GPL license, but I don't understand when people release simple stuff such as a code example with a GPL license...

debacle 11y ago
The GPL is a cancerous license. If you use GPLed code, your code must (almost always) become GPLed, thus the GPLed codebase grows. If a GPLed project use other OSS code, it tends to be able to keep those changes, but the opposite can't generally be reciprocated (You can't take GPLed aspects of Linux and port them to a project under the BSD license without changing the license of that software). This is not a bad thing. It sometimes sucks, but overall it's helped preserve the ecosystem and it has been integral, IMHO, in making sure companies stay honest with their upstream OSS meal tickets.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  > This is not a bad thing. Which is why cancer is not a good metaphor.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    Way to quote selectively there. "It sometimes sucks" occurs more frequently for many people than many would like to admit. I work for a company that uses a ton of open source and open sources a ton of its own technology. Even for us, the GPL is poison. We're not allowed to touch GPL code. And we're not alone in this sentiment. A large number of open source enthusiasts decry the viral nature of the GPL, precisely because it has unpleasant properties common with cancer.
    - belorn 11y ago