4 ms·

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 exampl

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) ;)
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- gloob 17y ago
  Cherry-picking the data set for the most radical examples you can find proves nothing. It's like saying that Christians are contaminated because the Westboro Baptist Church is crazy. You can't extrapolate from a single data point and unaided reason to actual reality.
ErrantX 17y ago
From where do these beliefs originate? As you say it is extremist. Most of us "really free" advocates simply worry that GPL sits in a weird place of presuming that closed source/commercial is inherently bad. It seems to take the approach of saying "we have to stop Evil Corp from using our code commercially" rather than the, IMO healthier one, of "lets make some free and open code". I personally can never handle the restrictions of GPL; if I can rewrite and release as BSD I do so.
- tensor 17y ago
  I'd like expand on this a bit. For me, what is distasteful about the GPL is the presumption that "our philosophy is the best one, lets lock in now." That is a position I cannot agree with. There are practical concerns about the sustainability of the GPL model in terms of economics. Programmers can not work for free. The usual claim that GPL proponents make is either "sell service, not software" or the ransom model where you GPL source only after you collect X amount for the production of it. They are interesting claims, but far from proven on a large scale. When I write code and wish to give it out for free, I want it to be available for all times and all models of work. What happens if it is one day determined that having all source under a GPL model is simply not sustainable in a realistic setting? That code is now locked forever into that model. For larger projects, it is impractical to track down every single committer in order to change the license. I even question the idea in terms of attracting new developers. How many people really start writing GPL code because of the existing base of software rather than because they agree with the idea of the GPL? It is yet another unproven claim. In short, I find the philosophy behind the GPL to be faith based rather than a sceptical scientific position. The goals and claims made by GPL proponents are completely unproven.
  - mortehu 17y ago
    I consider it a decision based on taste. It is a core value to me that my code should not be used in proprietary software if I'm not getting paid. From this personal preference, I only need to use rationality to decide to use GNU GPL instead of the BSD license.
  - boucher 17y ago
arto 17y ago
Since you asked... I subscribe to a school of political philosophy known as agorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism Call it libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism if you like. Close enough. Now, that implies that I believe copyright to be an immoral distribution monopoly founded in infamy and, like all state-granted privileges, ultimately enforced at the point of a gun: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1027905 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1027905 Naturally, I believe we'd be (and that we will be) much better off without it: http://mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P552.aspx http://mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P552.as... Obviously, I would expect no more than about 10% of readers to be prepared to agree with me, since that's about the typical proportion of individualists to collectivists ;-)

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) ;)

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

gloob 17y ago
Cherry-picking the data set for the most radical examples you can find proves nothing. It's like saying that Christians are contaminated because the Westboro Baptist Church is crazy. You can't extrapolate from a single data point and unaided reason to actual reality.

ErrantX 17y ago

From where do these beliefs originate? As you say it is extremist. Most of us "really free" advocates simply worry that GPL sits in a weird place of presuming that closed source/commercial is inherently bad. It seems to take the approach of saying "we have to stop Evil Corp from using our code commercially" rather than the, IMO healthier one, of "lets make some free and open code". I personally can never handle the restrictions of GPL; if I can rewrite and release as BSD I do so.

tensor 17y ago
I'd like expand on this a bit. For me, what is distasteful about the GPL is the presumption that "our philosophy is the best one, lets lock in now." That is a position I cannot agree with. There are practical concerns about the sustainability of the GPL model in terms of economics. Programmers can not work for free. The usual claim that GPL proponents make is either "sell service, not software" or the ransom model where you GPL source only after you collect X amount for the production of it. They are interesting claims, but far from proven on a large scale. When I write code and wish to give it out for free, I want it to be available for all times and all models of work. What happens if it is one day determined that having all source under a GPL model is simply not sustainable in a realistic setting? That code is now locked forever into that model. For larger projects, it is impractical to track down every single committer in order to change the license. I even question the idea in terms of attracting new developers. How many people really start writing GPL code because of the existing base of software rather than because they agree with the idea of the GPL? It is yet another unproven claim. In short, I find the philosophy behind the GPL to be faith based rather than a sceptical scientific position. The goals and claims made by GPL proponents are completely unproven.
- mortehu 17y ago
  I consider it a decision based on taste. It is a core value to me that my code should not be used in proprietary software if I'm not getting paid. From this personal preference, I only need to use rationality to decide to use GNU GPL instead of the BSD license.
- boucher 17y ago

arto 17y ago

Since you asked... I subscribe to a school of political philosophy known as agorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism Call it libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism if you like. Close enough. Now, that implies that I believe copyright to be an immoral distribution monopoly founded in infamy and, like all state-granted privileges, ultimately enforced at the point of a gun: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1027905 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1027905 Naturally, I believe we'd be (and that we will be) much better off without it: http://mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P552.aspx http://mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P552.as... Obviously, I would expect no more than about 10% of readers to be prepared to agree with me, since that's about the typical proportion of individualists to collectivists ;-)