4 ms·

> You're talking about using stuff in closed source or commercial software? Do you imagine a commercial company who you licensed a library from and then proceed

> You're talking about using stuff in closed source or commercial software? Do you imagine a commercial company who you licensed a library from and then proceeded to violate that license would be friendlier than that? Never mind hall of shame, you'll be looking at demands for thousands of dollars. They could be nicer about it but if they believe closed source software is inherently harmful to its users I can understand their position, and it's not their job to give you free legal advice. They are pretending they are free software but they are not. They pretend they are non profit but use scare tactics like commercial companies. Seriously its one thing to contribute for public good and another thing to restrict its usage. I am sorry but no matter how many times GPL envenglists redefine "free", its not.

lmm 11y ago
I don't see any scare tactics, and no-one's pretending to be non-profit who isn't. The LGPL terms are really not very onerous (we're not talking about the GPL here), and do make users' lives a lot easier.
- meanduck 11y ago
  > I don't see any scare tactics, and no-one's pretending to be non-profit who isn't. Tell that to devs listed here https://web.archive.org/web/20100622191216/http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100622191216/http://ffmpeg.org... or the people burned by SFLC/SFC. > The LGPL terms are really not very onerous (we're not talking about the GPL here), and do make users' lives a lot easier. We are talking about complex licences here. If you are going to release something in public good, please make the licence short and sweet like MIT/BSD. GPL ( even LGPL) are dev-unfriendly licences and restrict devs freedom.
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    > GPL ( even LGPL) are dev-unfriendly licences and restrict devs freedom. I concur it's the very contrary. When I (an end user, somewhat skilled in software development) obtain a GPL-licensed piece of software, I'm granted the freedoms to modify it and distribute my modifications. Or hire someone to do so. Or whatever. The only thing I'm asked is to grant others the same freedoms I enjoy myself, if I'd to distribute the software further. When I obtain a proprietary piece of software, I can either curse my way through reverse-engineering (as far as it's legal in my juristdiction) or wait until the proprietors would do something. That said, I'm basically powerless. When I obtain a BSD or MIT-licensed piece of software, it depends on the good will of the developers whenever they provide me with the source code (and license grants) or not. If they do, my options roughly match the GPL case - I'm granted the four essential freedoms. If they don't, then it's no different from the case that I just got a proprietary blob. So, we're basically relying on everyone's good will - but given so, GPL doesn't hinder the experience of those who're sharing anyway, and simply excludes those who don't want to respect their users with "if you don't want others to use your code, then don't use my code - write your own" attitude. I can't call "unfriendly" asking to respect another developer's will to keep their code free for everyone. Yes, the licensing makes their code unfit for the purposes of developing proprietary software, but being unfit is not unfriendly.
    - meanduck 11y ago
      > When I (an end user, somewhat skilled in software development) obtain a GPL-licensed piece of software, I'm granted the freedoms to modify it and distribute my modifications. Or hire someone to do so. Or whatever. The only thing I'm asked is to grant others the same freedoms I enjoy myself, if I'd to distribute the software further. > I can't call "unfriendly" asking to respect another developer's will to keep their code free for everyone. Yes, the licensing makes their code unfit for the purposes of developing proprietary software, but being unfit is not unfriendly. We are arguing semantics here. The point is, a dev cannot make use of GPL software in closed src. GPL software has a VERY BIG cost/restriciton and it will most likely outweigh open sourceness where as Proprietary/MIT/BSD does not require every confidential intellectual property it touches to be made public. > When I obtain a proprietary piece of software, I can either curse my way through reverse-engineering (as far as it's legal in my juristdiction) or wait until the proprietors would do something. That said, I'm basically powerless. Proprietary software can be open source. Beside we are not talking about open source here. We are talking about viral nature of GPL. > When I obtain a BSD or MIT-licensed piece of software, it depends on the good will of the developers whenever they provide me with the source code (and license grants) or not. BSD/MIT automatically implies open source. > If they do, my options roughly match the GPL case Except the big restriction. > GPL doesn't hinder the experience of those who're sharing anyway, and simply excludes those who don't want to respect their users with "if you don't want others to use your code, then don't use my code - write your own" attitude. This is fine attitude to have if you are the only contributing. But most open source contributors do not care. They rather contribute than waste their time in flame wars. Case in point: GPL/share-alike adoption has been in steady decline. All GPL does is stop devs from using it rather than create more open source softwares as GPL creaters hoped. You donate open source not demand it. But its seems GPL creaters missed that point.
      - drdaeman 11y ago
        > The point is, a dev cannot make use of GPL software in closed src. Yes. That's the very idea of GPL. One's either accepting it and gets what it grants, or not. > BSD/MIT automatically implies open source. Ok, I simplified the wording and the meaning was lost. Let me fix it. I meant, I got a binary but that binary was produced from a BSD/MIT/Apache/whatever-licensed source code. If that source isn't available to me (like on the almost every single Android phone we have out there), I'm basically powerless. > Proprietary software can be open source. This is certainly wrong. Unless you're not using OSI definition of open source, but something of your own. Or if we mean something different under the term "proprietary". > Case in point: GPL/share-alike adoption has been in steady decline. Not surprising. GPL had lost, you're totally right on this. It was predicted long ago - as most users don't possess any engineering skills, they don't exercise their freedoms to access the source code, modify it and distribute the modifications. The freedom to distribute the original software lost it to the unauthorized distribution ("piracy") and freemium-type software. Users don't care (actually IIRC it was shown that they tend to cope with whatever inconvenience they find, rather than try to fix it - that's also how privacy wars were lost), and developers find it that proprietary software has a well-known business models to bring profits, while free software requires to tread carefully. Yet, it's wrong that "all it does is stop devs from using it". The word "all" is surely incorrect. It does stop some devs from using it - two groups, actully: a) those who want to develop proprietary software and b) those who just can't stand it for any personal reasons. But that's not all it does - I've mentioned what it also does above.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
Free software has a generally accepted meaning. If you don't like it just use permissively licensed libraries in your projects.
- Hydraulix989 11y ago
  "Free software," in this case, is an oxymoron.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    No it protects the users freedom. One you understand that the GPL/LGPL are intended to protect user freedom not developer freedom they make a lot more sense.

lmm 11y ago

I don't see any scare tactics, and no-one's pretending to be non-profit who isn't. The LGPL terms are really not very onerous (we're not talking about the GPL here), and do make users' lives a lot easier.

meanduck 11y ago
> I don't see any scare tactics, and no-one's pretending to be non-profit who isn't. Tell that to devs listed here https://web.archive.org/web/20100622191216/http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100622191216/http://ffmpeg.org... or the people burned by SFLC/SFC. > The LGPL terms are really not very onerous (we're not talking about the GPL here), and do make users' lives a lot easier. We are talking about complex licences here. If you are going to release something in public good, please make the licence short and sweet like MIT/BSD. GPL ( even LGPL) are dev-unfriendly licences and restrict devs freedom.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  > GPL ( even LGPL) are dev-unfriendly licences and restrict devs freedom. I concur it's the very contrary. When I (an end user, somewhat skilled in software development) obtain a GPL-licensed piece of software, I'm granted the freedoms to modify it and distribute my modifications. Or hire someone to do so. Or whatever. The only thing I'm asked is to grant others the same freedoms I enjoy myself, if I'd to distribute the software further. When I obtain a proprietary piece of software, I can either curse my way through reverse-engineering (as far as it's legal in my juristdiction) or wait until the proprietors would do something. That said, I'm basically powerless. When I obtain a BSD or MIT-licensed piece of software, it depends on the good will of the developers whenever they provide me with the source code (and license grants) or not. If they do, my options roughly match the GPL case - I'm granted the four essential freedoms. If they don't, then it's no different from the case that I just got a proprietary blob. So, we're basically relying on everyone's good will - but given so, GPL doesn't hinder the experience of those who're sharing anyway, and simply excludes those who don't want to respect their users with "if you don't want others to use your code, then don't use my code - write your own" attitude. I can't call "unfriendly" asking to respect another developer's will to keep their code free for everyone. Yes, the licensing makes their code unfit for the purposes of developing proprietary software, but being unfit is not unfriendly.
  - meanduck 11y ago
    > When I (an end user, somewhat skilled in software development) obtain a GPL-licensed piece of software, I'm granted the freedoms to modify it and distribute my modifications. Or hire someone to do so. Or whatever. The only thing I'm asked is to grant others the same freedoms I enjoy myself, if I'd to distribute the software further. > I can't call "unfriendly" asking to respect another developer's will to keep their code free for everyone. Yes, the licensing makes their code unfit for the purposes of developing proprietary software, but being unfit is not unfriendly. We are arguing semantics here. The point is, a dev cannot make use of GPL software in closed src. GPL software has a VERY BIG cost/restriciton and it will most likely outweigh open sourceness where as Proprietary/MIT/BSD does not require every confidential intellectual property it touches to be made public. > When I obtain a proprietary piece of software, I can either curse my way through reverse-engineering (as far as it's legal in my juristdiction) or wait until the proprietors would do something. That said, I'm basically powerless. Proprietary software can be open source. Beside we are not talking about open source here. We are talking about viral nature of GPL. > When I obtain a BSD or MIT-licensed piece of software, it depends on the good will of the developers whenever they provide me with the source code (and license grants) or not. BSD/MIT automatically implies open source. > If they do, my options roughly match the GPL case Except the big restriction. > GPL doesn't hinder the experience of those who're sharing anyway, and simply excludes those who don't want to respect their users with "if you don't want others to use your code, then don't use my code - write your own" attitude. This is fine attitude to have if you are the only contributing. But most open source contributors do not care. They rather contribute than waste their time in flame wars. Case in point: GPL/share-alike adoption has been in steady decline. All GPL does is stop devs from using it rather than create more open source softwares as GPL creaters hoped. You donate open source not demand it. But its seems GPL creaters missed that point.
    - drdaeman 11y ago
      > The point is, a dev cannot make use of GPL software in closed src. Yes. That's the very idea of GPL. One's either accepting it and gets what it grants, or not. > BSD/MIT automatically implies open source. Ok, I simplified the wording and the meaning was lost. Let me fix it. I meant, I got a binary but that binary was produced from a BSD/MIT/Apache/whatever-licensed source code. If that source isn't available to me (like on the almost every single Android phone we have out there), I'm basically powerless. > Proprietary software can be open source. This is certainly wrong. Unless you're not using OSI definition of open source, but something of your own. Or if we mean something different under the term "proprietary". > Case in point: GPL/share-alike adoption has been in steady decline. Not surprising. GPL had lost, you're totally right on this. It was predicted long ago - as most users don't possess any engineering skills, they don't exercise their freedoms to access the source code, modify it and distribute the modifications. The freedom to distribute the original software lost it to the unauthorized distribution ("piracy") and freemium-type software. Users don't care (actually IIRC it was shown that they tend to cope with whatever inconvenience they find, rather than try to fix it - that's also how privacy wars were lost), and developers find it that proprietary software has a well-known business models to bring profits, while free software requires to tread carefully. Yet, it's wrong that "all it does is stop devs from using it". The word "all" is surely incorrect. It does stop some devs from using it - two groups, actully: a) those who want to develop proprietary software and b) those who just can't stand it for any personal reasons. But that's not all it does - I've mentioned what it also does above.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

Free software has a generally accepted meaning. If you don't like it just use permissively licensed libraries in your projects.

Hydraulix989 11y ago
"Free software," in this case, is an oxymoron.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  No it protects the users freedom. One you understand that the GPL/LGPL are intended to protect user freedom not developer freedom they make a lot more sense.