7 ms·

Sounds like Copyleft licenses like GPL and LGPL.

rcthompson 11y ago
No, the GPL family of licenses do not forbid commercial distribution.
nothrabannosir 11y ago
Definitely more restrictive than the GPL. Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Even resell for money, and definitely use in commercial setting.
- mystikal 11y ago
  > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Except develop the software however they want.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    > > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. > Except develop the software however they want. I don't know where you got that idea from. You can develop the software however you like. That's a technical question. The only requirement is that people you distribute your software to must also get the source code. The GPL's job is to protect user's freedom. The developers don't get any special treatment.
    - pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
      i don't know where you live that you never got the tivoization lawsuit articles. you're an idiot.
    - git-pull 11y ago
      > > Except develop the software however they want. > I don't know where you got that idea from. Many employers won't allow GPL codebase. The license isn't backwards compatible. I can't simply pull GPL code into my BSD licensed project. Even a snippet You can't, say, simply copy and paste a struct out of git or even libgit2. > You can develop the software however you like. Heh, its notorious for causing roadblocks in development. Look up the stories on LLVM/Clang, ZFS in Linux.
      - cyphar 11y ago
        >>> Except develop the software however they want. >> I don't know where you got that idea from. > Many employers won't allow GPL codebase. Explain it to your employer better then. Or find a better employer. Not to mention they are almost certainly using GPL code /somewhere/. > The license isn't backwards compatible. GPLvX or later makes them pseudo-compatible (you can release a combination under a newer license). That works fine for most people. > I can't simply pull GPL code into my BSD licensed project. Even a snippet. You can't, say, simply copy and paste a struct out of git or even libgit2. 1) Yes you can, it'll just become GPL licensed as a whole. 2) I don't think anyone would consider copying a structure as being a "significant portion" of the code. In fact, in C, structures aren't code at all, they're an API (the `struct` keyword generates no code). And I think we all agree as a community that APIs are not copyrightable (or else Linux and GNU would be the largest copyright violations on the planet). >> You can develop the software however you like. > Heh, its notorious for causing roadblocks in development. Look up the stories on LLVM/Clang, ZFS in Linux. ZFS on Linux / Dtrace are FUD. Given that Oracle already distributes DTrace with their Linux distribution, it's clearly dual-GPL licensed DTrace to their customers. If you agree that ZFS being included with Linux would be a GPL violation (I don't, because the spirit of the GPL is applied, and the binary itself is not a violation because CDDL allows sublicensing of the resulting binary), then distributing it as source that is compiled on the users' machine (DKMS) is fine. Not to mention that Oracle will not have standing to sue (their license has not been violated in the case of distributing CDDL code with the GPL -- the only people you can argue have their copyright violated are the the Linux kernel guys and I don't see why they would sue people for the dubious license under which the source code is distributed -- nobody seriously believes their whole work will be under the CDDL, only code that was ported directly from illumos's ZFS). The LLVM/Clang thing was caused by technical decisions in GCC, where they believed that making something like LLVM's IR would allow people to make proprietary compilers based on their technology (which is a valid grievance if you care about preserving software freedom). The point is that it was a technical decision. The only requirement you have if you use the GPL is to accompany your binaries with the source (or the other two provisions in the license which aren't as well-used as others).
  - fungos 11y ago
    It blows my mind to see how people are still misinformed. Is this result of some old FUD from 90s or what? I really don't know what causes this stigma to persist.
    - pyre 11y ago
      It's the idea that it's "forcing" the developer of proprietary software to make all of their software GPL if they are including GPL code in it. The thing that people fail to realize is that nobody is forcing said developer to use the GPL code instead of writing it themselves. They are not owed complete, unfettered access to relicense the code as they see fit just because it exists and the developer wants to use it.
      - mystikal 11y ago
        I think the restrictions on linking are the primary objection people have, and I guess also the patent stuff in v3. I would like to see a license that is weaker than LGPL (static linking allowed) and stronger than BSD. (For example, some projects are licensed as GPL+linking exception.) Basically, I'd like a license that said distributed modifications to the source code for this project must be open, but everything else is a free-for-all.
        drdaeman 11y ago
        Possibly, LGPL or MPL? You can link it with whatever proprietary code you want, but keep the LGPL library free. As long as you don't want to link LGPL-licensed library statically, it's quite simple to comply with license terms. There's also MPL (v2), that's weaker than LGPL, roughly operates on file-level (rather than LGPL's library-level).
        mystikal 11y ago
        I'm fine with static linking, it's even fine if you want to #include my source code. I never paid much attention to the MPL, will see, thanks.
        11y ago
  - davidw 11y ago
    You can actually even make proprietary modifications to GPL code within your organization - as long as you don't redistribute.
    - drdaeman 11y ago
      Edit: seems that I'm wrong. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributio... IGNORE WHAT'S BELOW. IT'S INCORRECT. Well, IANAL, but, I believe, technically, such modifications still have to be under GPL-compatible license (or organization is violating original authors' rights). I.e. anyone within the organization, who had used the software, must be granted all the freedoms GPL requires to be granted. Whenever organization members actually exercise those rights are up to them, of course. I don't think it's a bad thing. It's only fair - if your business relies on proprietary sauce that you really want to keep secret - some may still consider helping you (and they use BSD, MIT or LGPL) while some may not want it this way (and use GPL or AGPL).
      - mystikal 11y ago
        I think this is wrong, distributing within an organization is not considered distribution under the GPL.
        drdaeman 11y ago
        Yes, seems that you're right. At least GPL FAQ from FSF says so. I've updated the comment.
        pnt12 11y ago
        I'm not sure if you can restrict your employees from distributing the code, though. I can see 2 situations: 1. Employee executes GPL binary on company's computer. I'd consider this binary to belong to owner of the computer - the company. So employee may not have the right to ask for the code. 2. Employee gets GPL binary from company, executes it in his computer. Is he forbidden to get access and distribute the source code? Can a company make restrictions around the GPL to its workers?
- git-pull 11y ago
  I'm striked by all this grey text! > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Did you know FreeBSD allows you to build a full release into memory stick right from the source? No developer experience necessary! :-) Its easy forget that with the GPL, you also pass on the burden of whomever distributes software provides a way to get the source. BSD encumbers you with no such strings attached. The words "do whatever they want" and "definitely use in commercial setting" may be better set with an asterisk. GPL software is often available for free downloads and by second hand on CD's, notably with access to source code. Its popular among developers. Knowing that, it surprises me how often I see statements expressing GPL as if it were a brand new, moddable car with absolutely no string attached. GPL software would provide a means to get the source code, but other open source projects do too. But if you hand someone that Ubuntu CD, they definitely can't "do whatever they want". Its obligating them to comply to terms should they distribute it. > Even resell for money, and definitely use in commercial setting. The obligations do not run over well with commercial or reselling. I speak from personal experience and pain having dealt with GPLv2 in a commercial settings years ago. Ultimately business was lost do the the lack of flexibility we could give our customers. We had to deal with whether deploying our code on customers' servers created a distribution. Some customers will only accept running software if its on their servers, full stop. Many of the most successful public tech companies keep their code proprietary. Not out of pulling one over on you, or to limit your rights, but out of competitive advantage. Many choose to release code at their discretion, often in permissive libraries. > Except develop the software however they want. (greyed out as if it were incorrect) My BSD licensed projects can't simply pull in GPL code. My could would then be a derivative, the license would also affect people using code of my distributed with GPL parts. For GPL, the control over the distribution is uncharacteristically rigid in an open source software ecosystem of shared libraries built from source, developers contributing upstream on projects despite terms forcing reciprocity. The terms cascade downstream and steer the ultimate fate of the project - its not backwards compatible. You're walling yourself off to developers who can't comply with the terms GPL, and if you lose developers, you're losing potential contributions to the project.
cyphar 11y ago
It's not a free software license, nor is it copyleft. So it's nothing like the GPL. It's just another proprietary license (like the first license Linux was placed under before Torvalds relicensed it under the GPLv2).

No, the GPL family of licenses do not forbid commercial distribution.

Definitely more restrictive than the GPL. Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Even resell for money, and definitely use in commercial setting.

mystikal 11y ago
> Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Except develop the software however they want.
- cyphar 11y ago
  > > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. > Except develop the software however they want. I don't know where you got that idea from. You can develop the software however you like. That's a technical question. The only requirement is that people you distribute your software to must also get the source code. The GPL's job is to protect user's freedom. The developers don't get any special treatment.
  - pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
    i don't know where you live that you never got the tivoization lawsuit articles. you're an idiot.
  - git-pull 11y ago
    > > Except develop the software however they want. > I don't know where you got that idea from. Many employers won't allow GPL codebase. The license isn't backwards compatible. I can't simply pull GPL code into my BSD licensed project. Even a snippet You can't, say, simply copy and paste a struct out of git or even libgit2. > You can develop the software however you like. Heh, its notorious for causing roadblocks in development. Look up the stories on LLVM/Clang, ZFS in Linux.
    - cyphar 11y ago
      >>> Except develop the software however they want. >> I don't know where you got that idea from. > Many employers won't allow GPL codebase. Explain it to your employer better then. Or find a better employer. Not to mention they are almost certainly using GPL code /somewhere/. > The license isn't backwards compatible. GPLvX or later makes them pseudo-compatible (you can release a combination under a newer license). That works fine for most people. > I can't simply pull GPL code into my BSD licensed project. Even a snippet. You can't, say, simply copy and paste a struct out of git or even libgit2. 1) Yes you can, it'll just become GPL licensed as a whole. 2) I don't think anyone would consider copying a structure as being a "significant portion" of the code. In fact, in C, structures aren't code at all, they're an API (the `struct` keyword generates no code). And I think we all agree as a community that APIs are not copyrightable (or else Linux and GNU would be the largest copyright violations on the planet). >> You can develop the software however you like. > Heh, its notorious for causing roadblocks in development. Look up the stories on LLVM/Clang, ZFS in Linux. ZFS on Linux / Dtrace are FUD. Given that Oracle already distributes DTrace with their Linux distribution, it's clearly dual-GPL licensed DTrace to their customers. If you agree that ZFS being included with Linux would be a GPL violation (I don't, because the spirit of the GPL is applied, and the binary itself is not a violation because CDDL allows sublicensing of the resulting binary), then distributing it as source that is compiled on the users' machine (DKMS) is fine. Not to mention that Oracle will not have standing to sue (their license has not been violated in the case of distributing CDDL code with the GPL -- the only people you can argue have their copyright violated are the the Linux kernel guys and I don't see why they would sue people for the dubious license under which the source code is distributed -- nobody seriously believes their whole work will be under the CDDL, only code that was ported directly from illumos's ZFS). The LLVM/Clang thing was caused by technical decisions in GCC, where they believed that making something like LLVM's IR would allow people to make proprietary compilers based on their technology (which is a valid grievance if you care about preserving software freedom). The point is that it was a technical decision. The only requirement you have if you use the GPL is to accompany your binaries with the source (or the other two provisions in the license which aren't as well-used as others).
- fungos 11y ago
  It blows my mind to see how people are still misinformed. Is this result of some old FUD from 90s or what? I really don't know what causes this stigma to persist.
  - pyre 11y ago
    It's the idea that it's "forcing" the developer of proprietary software to make all of their software GPL if they are including GPL code in it. The thing that people fail to realize is that nobody is forcing said developer to use the GPL code instead of writing it themselves. They are not owed complete, unfettered access to relicense the code as they see fit just because it exists and the developer wants to use it.
    - mystikal 11y ago
      I think the restrictions on linking are the primary objection people have, and I guess also the patent stuff in v3. I would like to see a license that is weaker than LGPL (static linking allowed) and stronger than BSD. (For example, some projects are licensed as GPL+linking exception.) Basically, I'd like a license that said distributed modifications to the source code for this project must be open, but everything else is a free-for-all.
      - drdaeman 11y ago
        Possibly, LGPL or MPL? You can link it with whatever proprietary code you want, but keep the LGPL library free. As long as you don't want to link LGPL-licensed library statically, it's quite simple to comply with license terms. There's also MPL (v2), that's weaker than LGPL, roughly operates on file-level (rather than LGPL's library-level).
        mystikal 11y ago
        I'm fine with static linking, it's even fine if you want to #include my source code. I never paid much attention to the MPL, will see, thanks.
        11y ago
- davidw 11y ago
  You can actually even make proprietary modifications to GPL code within your organization - as long as you don't redistribute.
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    Edit: seems that I'm wrong. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributio... IGNORE WHAT'S BELOW. IT'S INCORRECT. Well, IANAL, but, I believe, technically, such modifications still have to be under GPL-compatible license (or organization is violating original authors' rights). I.e. anyone within the organization, who had used the software, must be granted all the freedoms GPL requires to be granted. Whenever organization members actually exercise those rights are up to them, of course. I don't think it's a bad thing. It's only fair - if your business relies on proprietary sauce that you really want to keep secret - some may still consider helping you (and they use BSD, MIT or LGPL) while some may not want it this way (and use GPL or AGPL).
    - mystikal 11y ago
      I think this is wrong, distributing within an organization is not considered distribution under the GPL.
      - drdaeman 11y ago
        Yes, seems that you're right. At least GPL FAQ from FSF says so. I've updated the comment.
      - pnt12 11y ago
        I'm not sure if you can restrict your employees from distributing the code, though. I can see 2 situations: 1. Employee executes GPL binary on company's computer. I'd consider this binary to belong to owner of the computer - the company. So employee may not have the right to ask for the code. 2. Employee gets GPL binary from company, executes it in his computer. Is he forbidden to get access and distribute the source code? Can a company make restrictions around the GPL to its workers?
git-pull 11y ago
I'm striked by all this grey text! > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Did you know FreeBSD allows you to build a full release into memory stick right from the source? No developer experience necessary! :-) Its easy forget that with the GPL, you also pass on the burden of whomever distributes software provides a way to get the source. BSD encumbers you with no such strings attached. The words "do whatever they want" and "definitely use in commercial setting" may be better set with an asterisk. GPL software is often available for free downloads and by second hand on CD's, notably with access to source code. Its popular among developers. Knowing that, it surprises me how often I see statements expressing GPL as if it were a brand new, moddable car with absolutely no string attached. GPL software would provide a means to get the source code, but other open source projects do too. But if you hand someone that Ubuntu CD, they definitely can't "do whatever they want". Its obligating them to comply to terms should they distribute it. > Even resell for money, and definitely use in commercial setting. The obligations do not run over well with commercial or reselling. I speak from personal experience and pain having dealt with GPLv2 in a commercial settings years ago. Ultimately business was lost do the the lack of flexibility we could give our customers. We had to deal with whether deploying our code on customers' servers created a distribution. Some customers will only accept running software if its on their servers, full stop. Many of the most successful public tech companies keep their code proprietary. Not out of pulling one over on you, or to limit your rights, but out of competitive advantage. Many choose to release code at their discretion, often in permissive libraries. > Except develop the software however they want. (greyed out as if it were incorrect) My BSD licensed projects can't simply pull in GPL code. My could would then be a derivative, the license would also affect people using code of my distributed with GPL parts. For GPL, the control over the distribution is uncharacteristically rigid in an open source software ecosystem of shared libraries built from source, developers contributing upstream on projects despite terms forcing reciprocity. The terms cascade downstream and steer the ultimate fate of the project - its not backwards compatible. You're walling yourself off to developers who can't comply with the terms GPL, and if you lose developers, you're losing potential contributions to the project.

cyphar 11y ago

It's not a free software license, nor is it copyleft. So it's nothing like the GPL. It's just another proprietary license (like the first license Linux was placed under before Torvalds relicensed it under the GPLv2).