3 ms·

It's not about being apologetic or anti-freedom, it's all about the reality of software. If it gets reimplemented with a more libral license, then the more lib

It's not about being apologetic or anti-freedom, it's all about the reality of software. If it gets reimplemented with a more libral license, then the more liberal version will dominate. If there is any incompatibility whatsoever, the more liberally licensed version will win. Look at gcc for an example: it has gcc-specific extensions and there are other compilers with more open license. These compilers are gaining the upper-hand. Making it GPL instead of LGPL is just a bad political choice. Especially for something which need wide adoption to even live. Image formats can only exist if they get adopted.

robert_foss 11y ago
GCC has been around for 30 years. Only in the past 5 years has LLVM been around, and LLVM really is the only compiler to ever have matched GCC. The value GCC has provided to the software community in large is immense. Do you think it would have survived this far if it had been MIT-licensed all along? To support this argument, I'd like you to think about all the other compilers that never had a 10th of the traction of GCC and how they were licensed. I do agree that the LGPL is a reasonable choice for prototype implementation of a specification. I don't think using the GPL is a huge loss compared to LGPL for a prototype. I'd like to ask a non-rhetorical question; On an individual basis is it not better if all software was available as sourcecode? And if so, does that not mean the choice of not-publishing sourcecode is done for other reasons than what's best for the individual(s)?
- kazinator 11y ago
  Unfortunately, a sample of one isn't statistically significant. That a GPL-licensed compiler suite is overwhelmingly popular rather than an MIT- or BSD-licensed one could be little more than a historic accident. BSD Unixes are BSD-licensed and have "survived this far". The SBCL implementation of Common Lisp is licensed as a "a mixture of BSD-style .. and public domain" [source: http://www.sbcl.org/history.html http://www.sbcl.org/history.html] It is a popular CL implementation. GNU Common Lisp [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Common_Lisp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Common_Lisp], the GNU Project's Common Lisp implementation, is LGPL-ed and has been a floundering project. The choice of license cannot be the determiner of what propels a project to the forefront of popularity in its class, because ... there are many more projects than licenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  GCC also almost died in the 90s.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  kazinator was correct that saying one product made it proves nothing about overall effectiveness of its attributes. That's unscientific. If we're using uptake and maintenance as criteria, we might start with the venerable Sourceforge to see what percentage of projects go anywhere or get maintained under various licenses (esp GPL). Compare that to proprietary while we're at it. I predict results aren't going to look good for GPL's success rate and that's without a financial requirement. Far as compilers, proprietary are winning out in terms of longevity, it's a select few proprietary vs GCC in terms of performance, GCC in uptake, LLVM with decent performance/uptake, and some others with intended academic uptake. So far, that's barely any GPL, one industrial BSD, quite a few academic (MIT/BSD licensed), and many proprietary. Apples to apples, GCC is barely special except in what it offers for free and how hard it is to extend. That's why LLVM was designed and why Apple built on it, among other companies and OSS-loving academics. After a mere market survey, GCC suddenly doesn't look amazing. Now what's your thoughts on GPL getting the only development when I bring up Apache, BIND, FreeBSD, Sendmail, and so on? Plenty get development. Success stories, just like GPL, still have little to do with copyleft of the license and a lot to do with community or resources.
- linkydinkandyou 11y ago
  I'm a big fan of GCC, but this just isn't true that nothing matched it. It may be true that nothing "free" matched it.' Where performance mattered we always used the commercial, proprietary, Intel compilers and/or the Microsoft compilers.

robert_foss 11y ago

GCC has been around for 30 years. Only in the past 5 years has LLVM been around, and LLVM really is the only compiler to ever have matched GCC. The value GCC has provided to the software community in large is immense. Do you think it would have survived this far if it had been MIT-licensed all along? To support this argument, I'd like you to think about all the other compilers that never had a 10th of the traction of GCC and how they were licensed. I do agree that the LGPL is a reasonable choice for prototype implementation of a specification. I don't think using the GPL is a huge loss compared to LGPL for a prototype. I'd like to ask a non-rhetorical question; On an individual basis is it not better if all software was available as sourcecode? And if so, does that not mean the choice of not-publishing sourcecode is done for other reasons than what's best for the individual(s)?

kazinator 11y ago
Unfortunately, a sample of one isn't statistically significant. That a GPL-licensed compiler suite is overwhelmingly popular rather than an MIT- or BSD-licensed one could be little more than a historic accident. BSD Unixes are BSD-licensed and have "survived this far". The SBCL implementation of Common Lisp is licensed as a "a mixture of BSD-style .. and public domain" [source: http://www.sbcl.org/history.html http://www.sbcl.org/history.html] It is a popular CL implementation. GNU Common Lisp [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Common_Lisp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Common_Lisp], the GNU Project's Common Lisp implementation, is LGPL-ed and has been a floundering project. The choice of license cannot be the determiner of what propels a project to the forefront of popularity in its class, because ... there are many more projects than licenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
GCC also almost died in the 90s.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
kazinator was correct that saying one product made it proves nothing about overall effectiveness of its attributes. That's unscientific. If we're using uptake and maintenance as criteria, we might start with the venerable Sourceforge to see what percentage of projects go anywhere or get maintained under various licenses (esp GPL). Compare that to proprietary while we're at it. I predict results aren't going to look good for GPL's success rate and that's without a financial requirement. Far as compilers, proprietary are winning out in terms of longevity, it's a select few proprietary vs GCC in terms of performance, GCC in uptake, LLVM with decent performance/uptake, and some others with intended academic uptake. So far, that's barely any GPL, one industrial BSD, quite a few academic (MIT/BSD licensed), and many proprietary. Apples to apples, GCC is barely special except in what it offers for free and how hard it is to extend. That's why LLVM was designed and why Apple built on it, among other companies and OSS-loving academics. After a mere market survey, GCC suddenly doesn't look amazing. Now what's your thoughts on GPL getting the only development when I bring up Apache, BIND, FreeBSD, Sendmail, and so on? Plenty get development. Success stories, just like GPL, still have little to do with copyleft of the license and a lot to do with community or resources.
linkydinkandyou 11y ago
I'm a big fan of GCC, but this just isn't true that nothing matched it. It may be true that nothing "free" matched it.' Where performance mattered we always used the commercial, proprietary, Intel compilers and/or the Microsoft compilers.