4 ms·

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 FOS

by 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
      If GPL is cancer for a company, then what then is proprietary licenses? nuclear bombs? Toxic waste? Ticking time bombs? I don't think such language is nice. It is damaging to civil conversation and can only alienate people more. No one likes hearing that what they create is like toxic waste.
      - throwawaykf05 11y ago
        How are proprietary licenses any better or worse than the GPL? It totally depends on what the terms of the license demand. Note that it is not the code that these people produce that is toxic, it is what they demand in return (via the terms of the license) that is. The language may not be nice, but it is descriptive of the situation the GPL puts many people into. The GPL essentially seeks to impose the ideology adopted by a subset of folks onto the rest of the world. "We believe code should be free, so if you want to use our stuff, your code must be free too, regardless of what you believe or what your business needs are or what is practical." That is not a very nice stance to have, and so many people do not say nice things about it. Think of it like someone saying, "Here, I'll do you a favor, but you must change your religion". Having different ideologies is perfectly fine, but enforcing them on others is not.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- hvs 11y ago
  I think the reason for the downvotes is that there are positive/neutral things that grow without the negative connotations of "cancer."

by Aldo_MX 11y ago

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
    If GPL is cancer for a company, then what then is proprietary licenses? nuclear bombs? Toxic waste? Ticking time bombs? I don't think such language is nice. It is damaging to civil conversation and can only alienate people more. No one likes hearing that what they create is like toxic waste.
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      How are proprietary licenses any better or worse than the GPL? It totally depends on what the terms of the license demand. Note that it is not the code that these people produce that is toxic, it is what they demand in return (via the terms of the license) that is. The language may not be nice, but it is descriptive of the situation the GPL puts many people into. The GPL essentially seeks to impose the ideology adopted by a subset of folks onto the rest of the world. "We believe code should be free, so if you want to use our stuff, your code must be free too, regardless of what you believe or what your business needs are or what is practical." That is not a very nice stance to have, and so many people do not say nice things about it. Think of it like someone saying, "Here, I'll do you a favor, but you must change your religion". Having different ideologies is perfectly fine, but enforcing them on others is not.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
hvs 11y ago
I think the reason for the downvotes is that there are positive/neutral things that grow without the negative connotations of "cancer."