5 ms·

Set your code free

26 points by mcantelon 17y ago

mrkurt 17y ago
Given the international variations in public domain copyright law, I wouldn't do this without thinking about it pretty heavily (and doing a great deal of research). Your code can be "more free" with an MIT/BSD style license in some cases.
apinstein 17y ago
Regardless of MIT/BSD/Apache/public domain choice, I am heartened to see so many people coming out in favor of these licenses vs copyleft.
jmillikin 17y ago
Careful - many legal jurisdictions do not recognize an author's right to place its work in the public domain. SQLite, arguably the most famous/successful example of public-domain software, has a paragraph on its copyright page[1] dealing with this circumstance. I remember reading (though I can't find a reference) that the SQLite authors regretted placing their choice of license, due to the legal issues, and stated that if they were to choose again they'd pick the new BSD or X11 license. Let me ask you: how often have you passed up on utilizing a great software library just because its open source license was not compatible with your own preferred flavor? Usually only when it's an unusual / poorly-designed license, such as WTFPL or four-clause BSD. Though sometimes, if the library is particularly important to whatever I'm doing, I'll choose/write a GPL'd version over BSD. Contrast this with the GPL/LGPL, which are one-way streets, or put another way, they are an entry without an exit. To paraphrase a classic song, your code can be checked out anytime you like, but it can never leave. It’s easy to see that if you want your code to be used as widely as possible, copyleft is perhaps not the way to go. But then, that’s sort of the whole point of copyleft, of course: you can look at my code, but if you touch it in a way I don’t approve of, I’ll crucify you with law and impunity. Well, yes, that's the point of copyleft. It simulates a world where all source is available, and embeds it into current copyright law. As more works become available in the embedded "sandbox", there is more incentive for others to open their work. Somewhat unrelated, but the outright hostility towards copyleft that I sometimes see from the BSD side is baffling. I recently had an internet-argument about using the GPL for some software I released[2], where some of the same claims in this article appeared. Most notably, that using the GPL "doomed it to relative obscurity" and "copyleft code is contaminated". From where do these beliefs originate? Most of the software I use every day is available under the GPL -- the only cases I can think of which aren't are Xorg and OpenSSH. [1] http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/ajbvb/cpython_haskell_ffi_bindings_to_python/ http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/ajbvb/cpython_haske...
- apinstein 17y ago
  What turned me against GPL was mysql -- MySQL AB decided that shipping Mysql with a commercial product was a "violation" of GPL and thus we'd have to buy a commercial license. Their argument is essentially that you can't use mysql for a commercial product because if you do, you're "linking" to it and thus need a commercial license. If using a database as a database server doesn't count under the "work product" of a database, then what does? Thus, I have to assume that any company backing GPL software might eventually go that route, making it dangerous to my business to ever try to use it for a commercial product. That is a worry I don't want to have, and thus I use non-GPL open-source whenever I can. This is what the OP meant by "contaminated", and since many people don't like to use GPL code for this same reason, it is what lead him to call it "doomed to obscurity". Clearly hyperbole, but point taken.
  - jmillikin 17y ago
    The GPL is a copyright license, based on existing copyright law and precedent. Yes, it is possible for a copyright holder to make absurd claims about the license, but to enforce it, they'd have to convince a lawyer to take the case and a judge to rule in their favor. For what it's worth, the GPL explicitly states that aggregation in that way does not imply that it's a derived work. MySQL (or Sun, or now Oracle) would be laughed out of court. Note also that using code licensed under the (for example) BSD or MIT license does not protect you from some loony suing you for copyright violation.
  - dangrossman 17y ago
    There's no legal precedent for MySQL's argument that simply using their database is linking. There's not even legal precedent that linked code creates a derivative work.
    - lolcraft 17y ago
      A disputed matter. No one is going to bet his business on that issue, when alternatives exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Link... But if you give it for free, neither Linus nor the FSF will lift a finger (like the NVIDIA drivers) ;)
pvg 17y ago
If you failed Ethics 101 (sociopaths, raise your hand) or are not one to philosophize, you can safely quit reading here. Or if you value your time or don't like being hectored.
j_baker 17y ago
This was a reasonable post until it got into how "free" software advocates use the powers of state violence to enforce their crooked ways. That just seems a bit far-fetched to me.
- cabalamat 17y ago
  I agree, the rhetoric is over the top, but it is true that if I GPL some code I write, then that uses copyright law to limit what other people can do with it, and states can and do in extremis enforce their laws with violence.
- kiba 17y ago
  To an anarcho-captialists, this is quite a reasonable view. You just need a different perspective.
  - arto 17y ago
    Indeed.
boucher 17y ago
Wow, this is a gross misrepresentation of CopyLeft licenses.
- tensor 17y ago
  How so? Copyleft has always said "you are free to do things our way." That's the entire intent and why proponents of the idea like to write Free with a capital, to distinguish from the usual definition of the word.
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    Right. The point of copyleft is not to give things away free to everybody, but to change the power dynamics of the market by affording some competitive advantage to community developments. The end vision of this is the creation of best-of-breed tools and content that are available to all and, as a result, raise collective productivity.
  - boucher 17y ago
    Do I really need to point out the ways? Agree or disagree with CopyLeft, this is just extreme: - Applying the coercive machinery of the state in this way always boils down to the threat of physical violence for non-compliance. - [you've] given men with guns a pretext for tearing apart a life, or lives - I have no interest whatsoever in wreaking havoc on people who want to use my code - Not only copyleft advocates but anybody affixing a licensing statement to open-source software is guilty of ... magical thinking
    - tensor 17y ago
      It's an odd way of looking at things, but not incorrect. If you refuse repeatedly to submit to law, physical violence is the necessary end result. What he does misrepresent is that his rant is true of all application of law. I certainly do not think anyone would seriously claim all use of law is bad. At any rate, it does not misrepresent the GPL. It describes it fairly well. It is his stance on law overall that is extreme: the position of anarchy.
cjbprime 17y ago
If you failed Ethics 101 (sociopaths, raise your hand) or are not one to philosophize, you can safely quit reading here. I love ethics, and my sense of ethics leads me to use the GPL. I'm a consequentialist/utilitarian, and that tells me that I should behave in a way that maximizes the utility of the software I release. I think that the GPL has a fine record of causing excellent-quality free software to come into being, so I use that; it's a strategic choice. It's possible that someone could make an argument that releasing software under a BSD license, or indeed public domain, results in a greater volume of free software than when you use the GPL. I've never heard that argument made, though, and the success of Linux contrasted with the failure (as free software) of FreeBSD is one example of why I'd be suspicious of that claim. Since we're talking about ethics, we could try to work out where yours diverge. It sounds like you might be a deontologist of some kind -- you say you're worried about people experiencing violence as a result of decisions people make to release GPL'd software, but that's extremely rare, because no-one forces anyone else to violate the license of GPL'd code; instead, people will just use other code instead. If the outcome you're fixated on bothers you even if GPL software doesn't actually cause anyone to lose everything in a lawsuit (are there any documented examples of that happening?), you don't appear to be a consequentialist, or to choose your behavior based on expected consequences. What do you choose it on instead?
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  I'll sign up for deontology. The user has a right to learn from and improve their tools. If sapience has a purpose, that's a huge part of it, and I find this to be the main ethical argument the author neglected. I know some users don't care about this (they're honestly fine with doing only what the vendor supports) but I've never had much respect for that attitude, so I'm not moved to contribute to proprietary or non-copyleft work unless paid well.

26 points by mcantelon 17y ago

Given the international variations in public domain copyright law, I wouldn't do this without thinking about it pretty heavily (and doing a great deal of research). Your code can be "more free" with an MIT/BSD style license in some cases.

apinstein 17y ago

Regardless of MIT/BSD/Apache/public domain choice, I am heartened to see so many people coming out in favor of these licenses vs copyleft.

jmillikin 17y ago

Careful - many legal jurisdictions do not recognize an author's right to place its work in the public domain. SQLite, arguably the most famous/successful example of public-domain software, has a paragraph on its copyright page[1] dealing with this circumstance. I remember reading (though I can't find a reference) that the SQLite authors regretted placing their choice of license, due to the legal issues, and stated that if they were to choose again they'd pick the new BSD or X11 license. Let me ask you: how often have you passed up on utilizing a great software library just because its open source license was not compatible with your own preferred flavor? Usually only when it's an unusual / poorly-designed license, such as WTFPL or four-clause BSD. Though sometimes, if the library is particularly important to whatever I'm doing, I'll choose/write a GPL'd version over BSD. Contrast this with the GPL/LGPL, which are one-way streets, or put another way, they are an entry without an exit. To paraphrase a classic song, your code can be checked out anytime you like, but it can never leave. It’s easy to see that if you want your code to be used as widely as possible, copyleft is perhaps not the way to go. But then, that’s sort of the whole point of copyleft, of course: you can look at my code, but if you touch it in a way I don’t approve of, I’ll crucify you with law and impunity. Well, yes, that's the point of copyleft. It simulates a world where all source is available, and embeds it into current copyright law. As more works become available in the embedded "sandbox", there is more incentive for others to open their work. Somewhat unrelated, but the outright hostility towards copyleft that I sometimes see from the BSD side is baffling. I recently had an internet-argument about using the GPL for some software I released[2], where some of the same claims in this article appeared. Most notably, that using the GPL "doomed it to relative obscurity" and "copyleft code is contaminated". From where do these beliefs originate? Most of the software I use every day is available under the GPL -- the only cases I can think of which aren't are Xorg and OpenSSH. [1] http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/ajbvb/cpython_haskell_ffi_bindings_to_python/ http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/ajbvb/cpython_haske...

apinstein 17y ago
What turned me against GPL was mysql -- MySQL AB decided that shipping Mysql with a commercial product was a "violation" of GPL and thus we'd have to buy a commercial license. Their argument is essentially that you can't use mysql for a commercial product because if you do, you're "linking" to it and thus need a commercial license. If using a database as a database server doesn't count under the "work product" of a database, then what does? Thus, I have to assume that any company backing GPL software might eventually go that route, making it dangerous to my business to ever try to use it for a commercial product. That is a worry I don't want to have, and thus I use non-GPL open-source whenever I can. This is what the OP meant by "contaminated", and since many people don't like to use GPL code for this same reason, it is what lead him to call it "doomed to obscurity". Clearly hyperbole, but point taken.
- jmillikin 17y ago
  The GPL is a copyright license, based on existing copyright law and precedent. Yes, it is possible for a copyright holder to make absurd claims about the license, but to enforce it, they'd have to convince a lawyer to take the case and a judge to rule in their favor. For what it's worth, the GPL explicitly states that aggregation in that way does not imply that it's a derived work. MySQL (or Sun, or now Oracle) would be laughed out of court. Note also that using code licensed under the (for example) BSD or MIT license does not protect you from some loony suing you for copyright violation.
- dangrossman 17y ago
  There's no legal precedent for MySQL's argument that simply using their database is linking. There's not even legal precedent that linked code creates a derivative work.
  - lolcraft 17y ago
    A disputed matter. No one is going to bet his business on that issue, when alternatives exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Link... But if you give it for free, neither Linus nor the FSF will lift a finger (like the NVIDIA drivers) ;)

pvg 17y ago

If you failed Ethics 101 (sociopaths, raise your hand) or are not one to philosophize, you can safely quit reading here. Or if you value your time or don't like being hectored.

j_baker 17y ago

This was a reasonable post until it got into how "free" software advocates use the powers of state violence to enforce their crooked ways. That just seems a bit far-fetched to me.

cabalamat 17y ago
I agree, the rhetoric is over the top, but it is true that if I GPL some code I write, then that uses copyright law to limit what other people can do with it, and states can and do in extremis enforce their laws with violence.
kiba 17y ago
To an anarcho-captialists, this is quite a reasonable view. You just need a different perspective.
- arto 17y ago
  Indeed.

boucher 17y ago

Wow, this is a gross misrepresentation of CopyLeft licenses.

tensor 17y ago
How so? Copyleft has always said "you are free to do things our way." That's the entire intent and why proponents of the idea like to write Free with a capital, to distinguish from the usual definition of the word.
- mcantelon 17y ago
  Right. The point of copyleft is not to give things away free to everybody, but to change the power dynamics of the market by affording some competitive advantage to community developments. The end vision of this is the creation of best-of-breed tools and content that are available to all and, as a result, raise collective productivity.
- boucher 17y ago
  Do I really need to point out the ways? Agree or disagree with CopyLeft, this is just extreme: - Applying the coercive machinery of the state in this way always boils down to the threat of physical violence for non-compliance. - [you've] given men with guns a pretext for tearing apart a life, or lives - I have no interest whatsoever in wreaking havoc on people who want to use my code - Not only copyleft advocates but anybody affixing a licensing statement to open-source software is guilty of ... magical thinking
  - tensor 17y ago
    It's an odd way of looking at things, but not incorrect. If you refuse repeatedly to submit to law, physical violence is the necessary end result. What he does misrepresent is that his rant is true of all application of law. I certainly do not think anyone would seriously claim all use of law is bad. At any rate, it does not misrepresent the GPL. It describes it fairly well. It is his stance on law overall that is extreme: the position of anarchy.

cjbprime 17y ago

If you failed Ethics 101 (sociopaths, raise your hand) or are not one to philosophize, you can safely quit reading here. I love ethics, and my sense of ethics leads me to use the GPL. I'm a consequentialist/utilitarian, and that tells me that I should behave in a way that maximizes the utility of the software I release. I think that the GPL has a fine record of causing excellent-quality free software to come into being, so I use that; it's a strategic choice. It's possible that someone could make an argument that releasing software under a BSD license, or indeed public domain, results in a greater volume of free software than when you use the GPL. I've never heard that argument made, though, and the success of Linux contrasted with the failure (as free software) of FreeBSD is one example of why I'd be suspicious of that claim. Since we're talking about ethics, we could try to work out where yours diverge. It sounds like you might be a deontologist of some kind -- you say you're worried about people experiencing violence as a result of decisions people make to release GPL'd software, but that's extremely rare, because no-one forces anyone else to violate the license of GPL'd code; instead, people will just use other code instead. If the outcome you're fixated on bothers you even if GPL software doesn't actually cause anyone to lose everything in a lawsuit (are there any documented examples of that happening?), you don't appear to be a consequentialist, or to choose your behavior based on expected consequences. What do you choose it on instead?

prodigal_erik 17y ago
I'll sign up for deontology. The user has a right to learn from and improve their tools. If sapience has a purpose, that's a huge part of it, and I find this to be the main ethical argument the author neglected. I know some users don't care about this (they're honestly fine with doing only what the vendor supports) but I've never had much respect for that attitude, so I'm not moved to contribute to proprietary or non-copyleft work unless paid well.