4 ms·
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 p
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe opposite approach isn't proven either. In other words, there is no data on the issue. So you too are, in essence, making a decision based on faith. Although I can't find a recent source, it has historically been the case, and probably still is, that the GPL is the most popular open source license. Not everyone who uses the GPL or advocates in favor of the GPL believes it should be the only license. I suspect hardly anyone does. Unfortunately people let their opinions of RMS cloud this debate. The argument that the GPL prevents people from turning a profit is not a sound one. Any business model available under a non GPL license is available under a GPL license as well. Additionally, the dual license model becomes a viable option when using the GPL.
- tensor 17y agoI am not making any claims, however. I am not claiming the opposite approach (closed source?) is the best. I am simply ensuring that most software I write is available for everyone, period. It could be used in a GPL project, a closed source project, or a BSD project. I am not even advocating a license position. My only goal is to help society by lessoning the work required by others, since they can freely use my code. A license like the MIT license maximizes that goal as far as I can see. I am content with admitting that I do not know the "best" model. And I am not opposed to releasing work under other licenses at other times. I have even released under the GPL in the past, but for political reasons. If you think I am a license warrior, you are incorrect.