5 ms·

> 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 m

> 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.
- meanduck 11y ago
  > 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. The BSD/MIT is the agreement between original devs and binary provider. There is no BSD/MIT between binary provider and you. If all the company is giving you binary but not source I dont think there can be BSD/MIT. So if someone gives you something labeled as BSD/MIT its going to be open source with no string attached. > 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". It appears I am using my definiton for open source. To me open source means something whose source files are available. So proprietary can come with sources which is likely for dev centric software. > 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. I agree GPL is user-friendly but it is so at the cost of dev-unfriendliness. > 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. We are on HN so almost all devs are people who develop proprietary softwares. Even HN aside, all most all software development is proprietary. Hence the trend. In my ideal world open source development works like this. We come togther, do our part while asking nothing in return and solve a common problem. Thats it. No strings or condition or anything.
  - schoen 11y ago
    It seems you've created your own definitions for both "open source" and "free software" in order to exclude copyleft from both categories and allow proprietary software to be included in both categories. Both of these terms have definitions going back decades by now which contradict yours; in the open source case, one of the reasons for starting to using the term in the first place was to avoid possible misconceptions or misunderstandings of what "free software" referred to!
lmm 11y ago
But we're talking about LGPL, not GPL. > Proprietary/MIT/BSD does not require every confidential intellectual property it touches to be made public. A lot of proprietary libraries you can license have very onerous licensing terms; certainly much longer and more complex than the LGPL. E.g. the notice requirements that got MediaCoder into trouble are often exactly the same (that's why so many programs have "contains an implementation of the LZW algorithm" or "uses Bink video technology" or "built with the Unreal engine" or that Creative sound codec I've forgotten the name of, on their splash screens and in their about boxes). Heck, the advertising clause in the original (4-clause) BSD license is much more onerous than anything in the LGPL. Sure, the makers of those libraries don't say "we will give you free legal advice but only if you make your whole program open-source" - but that's because they won't offer you free legal advice at all, they expect you to understand and comply with the license you have from them. And you will often have to e.g. give them access to perform audits so that they can confirm you're complying with the license (and paying royalties correctly, if you're using a library you pay per-use royalties for). The LGPL is less permissive than the MIT license, sure. But it's absurd to claim it's somehow less open source or more restricted than typical proprietary library licenses.

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.

meanduck 11y ago
> 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. The BSD/MIT is the agreement between original devs and binary provider. There is no BSD/MIT between binary provider and you. If all the company is giving you binary but not source I dont think there can be BSD/MIT. So if someone gives you something labeled as BSD/MIT its going to be open source with no string attached. > 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". It appears I am using my definiton for open source. To me open source means something whose source files are available. So proprietary can come with sources which is likely for dev centric software. > 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. I agree GPL is user-friendly but it is so at the cost of dev-unfriendliness. > 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. We are on HN so almost all devs are people who develop proprietary softwares. Even HN aside, all most all software development is proprietary. Hence the trend. In my ideal world open source development works like this. We come togther, do our part while asking nothing in return and solve a common problem. Thats it. No strings or condition or anything.
- schoen 11y ago
  It seems you've created your own definitions for both "open source" and "free software" in order to exclude copyleft from both categories and allow proprietary software to be included in both categories. Both of these terms have definitions going back decades by now which contradict yours; in the open source case, one of the reasons for starting to using the term in the first place was to avoid possible misconceptions or misunderstandings of what "free software" referred to!

lmm 11y ago

But we're talking about LGPL, not GPL. > Proprietary/MIT/BSD does not require every confidential intellectual property it touches to be made public. A lot of proprietary libraries you can license have very onerous licensing terms; certainly much longer and more complex than the LGPL. E.g. the notice requirements that got MediaCoder into trouble are often exactly the same (that's why so many programs have "contains an implementation of the LZW algorithm" or "uses Bink video technology" or "built with the Unreal engine" or that Creative sound codec I've forgotten the name of, on their splash screens and in their about boxes). Heck, the advertising clause in the original (4-clause) BSD license is much more onerous than anything in the LGPL. Sure, the makers of those libraries don't say "we will give you free legal advice but only if you make your whole program open-source" - but that's because they won't offer you free legal advice at all, they expect you to understand and comply with the license you have from them. And you will often have to e.g. give them access to perform audits so that they can confirm you're complying with the license (and paying royalties correctly, if you're using a library you pay per-use royalties for). The LGPL is less permissive than the MIT license, sure. But it's absurd to claim it's somehow less open source or more restricted than typical proprietary library licenses.