7 ms·

I volunteered at the Free Software Foundation for about 2 years when I was a student at MIT. GPL is almost always a bad choice for open source projects. I cou

I volunteered at the Free Software Foundation for about 2 years when I was a student at MIT. GPL is almost always a bad choice for open source projects. I could write for days on the subject - but I'll try to be brief. (Note: I am not a lawyer and not speaking on behalf of the FSF, just on my own capacity.) This was during the years Linux was the rebel, Microsoft was the suits, and you could plop the GPL on anything and people would embrace it as the worlds. Code was open - but untouchable by the corporations. To my surprise, after joining them rank and file of the private sector people chided me for my enthusiasm in the GPL. I realize in retrospect the youthful folly of it. It turns out the "poison pill" that is the derivative work clause of the license affects everybody. That is, hardware vendors, game makers, medium sized companies, small companies, individuals, even more permissively licensed open source projects can't touch GPL. What took me years to realize is when corporate brought us into a meeting with the lawyers, LGPL and GPL w/ exceptions are in the same boat! These exceptions are weak compared to the 9 pages of restrictions biased toward the virility of it. What made me really popular in open source, made me an outcast at work. It got me, fresh out of MIT, fired, and for a time on welfare (only for the period of 2 weeks). GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. It's restrictive and, while done in good faith, completely burns bridges and appeal to people who'd otherwise be happy contributing upstream to some projects. Reminder, I am not a lawyer and was only a volunteer at FSF. I still accept GPL for some projects, but my opinion has since changed since entering the workforce.

stal 11y ago
>GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. It's restrictive and, while done in good faith, completely burns bridges and appeal to people who'd otherwise be happy contributing upstream to some projects. I am a Marxist. Go on? (I have my own critique of the GPL - by its nature, it demands I conform to a liberal conception of freedom. I do not consider it a freedom to have corporate entities exploit my software for profit without compensating me.)
- isolate 11y ago
  The argument is something like workers owning the means of production is akin to users having control of the source code. Which although maybe debatable, is not a slur in and of itself.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. How, pray tell, is it Marxist?
- FormerFSF 11y ago
  I just got an email from a FSF employee asking me to remove comment. That was fast. > How, pray tell, is it Marxist? It's a meme from #/g/technology on irc.rizon.net.
  - krisdol 11y ago
    Way to discredit yourself. Makes me wish MITs education was more well-rounded
    - FormerFSF 11y ago
      What discredits me? My MIT degree or my two years of service for the FSF.
tagrun 11y ago
GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. Now I understand this can me it unpopular with closed-source shops but it wasn't designed to make corporations happy. I would've expected someone who volunteered at FSF understood this basic fact (or trade-off, if you like) long ago. After reading your story, I'm not sure what actually motivated you to volunteer there in the first place. I somehow can't believe it's because you really shared their philosophy. To me, it seems you are the one who's twisting things motivated by a personal anecdote.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  > GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. What possibly can be said in favour of GPL is that it: * make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free * opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing * provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code Case in point : there is nothing in either the ASL, BSD or MIT that allows you to go back and make already licensed code less free. The original authors can choose to license their new or existing code under another license as well, as can coders using GPL. Personally I would be happy if everyone could stop pretending that GPL is more free or respects users more, - as I have tried to show above it does not. There might still be ideological and even practical reasons to use GPL, but it is NOT more free, possibly less.
  - random778 11y ago
    How do you define freedom w.r.t. software? Based on your examples, you differ from Stallman, but it is unclear to me how you see it.
    - reitanqild 11y ago
      more restrictions => the less freedom. Which means liberal licenses pr def are more free.
  - prodigal_erik 11y ago
    iOS and MacOS users face huge barriers to hacking their devices because the BSD license didn't even attempt to ensure their freedom to do so. To publish code without copyleft is to donate your work to the parasites of the industry.
cbd1984 11y ago
> GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. You appear to be using the term "Marxist" as a snarl term. This is strong evidence you're trolling. Please leave. We don't especially want trolls here.
- baad1dea 11y ago
  >We don't especially want trolls here. And judging from the responses in this thread, it appears that he is successful. Or do you enjoy feeding trolls?
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    Feeding trolls isn't what makes them stay. Lax moderation makes them stay.
- david-given 11y ago
  Please don't say things like this.
- gojomo 11y ago
  Even if the rhetoric was out of bounds, the right remedy would be to "improve", not "leave". But the use of the term was fair. There is a political and ideological aspect of the fierce-copyleft outlook that cross-fertilizes with Marx-ish thinking. Eben Moglen is often eloquent on these themes. It's not necessarily an insult to observe this. And in this kind of casual, vernacular use – uncapitalized, even! – people also understand 'marxist' to describe language that has been shifted, by certain stylized theories of production and exploitation, from its plainer meaning in other contexts. That's a reasonably expressive way to describe the very particular and ideologically-qualified definition of "Free" that the FSF prefers.
chei0aiV 11y ago
A couple of fundraisers for those who still support the FSF, copyleft, the GPL, Free Software or Linux: https://www.fsf.org/appeal/ https://www.fsf.org/appeal/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
escape_goat 11y ago
What did you actually do, fresh out of MIT, such that your philosophical support for the GPL was the actual proximate cause for which you were fired? I'm having trouble seeing how this could come about for somebody who was neither determining nor advising about policy, so I'm curious as to what your role was.
ktRolster 11y ago
I've used both BSD and GPL licensed software at work. I've never heard of anyone getting fired for that. BSD - if you want your software to be used as much as possible, even if the user doesn't return the favor. GPL - if you want corporations who benefit from your software to give something back. (also useful for dual licensing, so you can make money).

stal 11y ago

>GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. It's restrictive and, while done in good faith, completely burns bridges and appeal to people who'd otherwise be happy contributing upstream to some projects. I am a Marxist. Go on? (I have my own critique of the GPL - by its nature, it demands I conform to a liberal conception of freedom. I do not consider it a freedom to have corporate entities exploit my software for profit without compensating me.)

isolate 11y ago
The argument is something like workers owning the means of production is akin to users having control of the source code. Which although maybe debatable, is not a slur in and of itself.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. How, pray tell, is it Marxist?

FormerFSF 11y ago
I just got an email from a FSF employee asking me to remove comment. That was fast. > How, pray tell, is it Marxist? It's a meme from #/g/technology on irc.rizon.net.
- krisdol 11y ago
  Way to discredit yourself. Makes me wish MITs education was more well-rounded
  - FormerFSF 11y ago
    What discredits me? My MIT degree or my two years of service for the FSF.

tagrun 11y ago

GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. Now I understand this can me it unpopular with closed-source shops but it wasn't designed to make corporations happy. I would've expected someone who volunteered at FSF understood this basic fact (or trade-off, if you like) long ago. After reading your story, I'm not sure what actually motivated you to volunteer there in the first place. I somehow can't believe it's because you really shared their philosophy. To me, it seems you are the one who's twisting things motivated by a personal anecdote.

reitanqild 11y ago
> GPL works well to protect the freedom of its users. As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License. What possibly can be said in favour of GPL is that it: * make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free * opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing * provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code Case in point : there is nothing in either the ASL, BSD or MIT that allows you to go back and make already licensed code less free. The original authors can choose to license their new or existing code under another license as well, as can coders using GPL. Personally I would be happy if everyone could stop pretending that GPL is more free or respects users more, - as I have tried to show above it does not. There might still be ideological and even practical reasons to use GPL, but it is NOT more free, possibly less.
- random778 11y ago
  How do you define freedom w.r.t. software? Based on your examples, you differ from Stallman, but it is unclear to me how you see it.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    more restrictions => the less freedom. Which means liberal licenses pr def are more free.
- prodigal_erik 11y ago
  iOS and MacOS users face huge barriers to hacking their devices because the BSD license didn't even attempt to ensure their freedom to do so. To publish code without copyleft is to donate your work to the parasites of the industry.

cbd1984 11y ago

> GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. You appear to be using the term "Marxist" as a snarl term. This is strong evidence you're trolling. Please leave. We don't especially want trolls here.

baad1dea 11y ago
>We don't especially want trolls here. And judging from the responses in this thread, it appears that he is successful. Or do you enjoy feeding trolls?
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Feeding trolls isn't what makes them stay. Lax moderation makes them stay.
david-given 11y ago
Please don't say things like this.
gojomo 11y ago
Even if the rhetoric was out of bounds, the right remedy would be to "improve", not "leave". But the use of the term was fair. There is a political and ideological aspect of the fierce-copyleft outlook that cross-fertilizes with Marx-ish thinking. Eben Moglen is often eloquent on these themes. It's not necessarily an insult to observe this. And in this kind of casual, vernacular use – uncapitalized, even! – people also understand 'marxist' to describe language that has been shifted, by certain stylized theories of production and exploitation, from its plainer meaning in other contexts. That's a reasonably expressive way to describe the very particular and ideologically-qualified definition of "Free" that the FSF prefers.

chei0aiV 11y ago

A couple of fundraisers for those who still support the FSF, copyleft, the GPL, Free Software or Linux: https://www.fsf.org/appeal/ https://www.fsf.org/appeal/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

escape_goat 11y ago

What did you actually do, fresh out of MIT, such that your philosophical support for the GPL was the actual proximate cause for which you were fired? I'm having trouble seeing how this could come about for somebody who was neither determining nor advising about policy, so I'm curious as to what your role was.

ktRolster 11y ago

I've used both BSD and GPL licensed software at work. I've never heard of anyone getting fired for that. BSD - if you want your software to be used as much as possible, even if the user doesn't return the favor. GPL - if you want corporations who benefit from your software to give something back. (also useful for dual licensing, so you can make money).