4 ms·

MIT is a more business-friendly license, but it also reduces the risk of lawsuits tremendously for companies who might decide to become part of the ecosystem fo

MIT is a more business-friendly license, but it also reduces the risk of lawsuits tremendously for companies who might decide to become part of the ecosystem for a project. Consider that Apple is still using the oldest GPLv2 version of bash on OSX. While this is a blow to Stallman's goal, I think it's a step in the right direction for broad corporate acceptance of the benefits of open source.

valarauca1 11y ago
GPLv3 has a lot of provisions concerning how companies may/may not litigate patients. Apple's legal strategies don't allow them to comply with those requirements.
- cyphar 11y ago
  > GPLv3 has a lot of provisions concerning how companies may/may not litigate patients. Apple's legal strategies don't allow them to comply with those requirements. In regards to the particular piece of software being licensed. The patent provisions are akin to a copyleft Apache 2. Since companies are very happy to use the Apache 2 to avoid lawsuits I'm (not) surprised that they don't want to extend the same protections to their users with the GPLv3.
lottin 11y ago
Forget Stallman. It's basic human decency. If I benefit from someone else's work, the least I can do is let others benefit from my work as well.
- true_religion 11y ago
  I wouldn't say that's the least you can do. That's actually coming quite close to the most that would do. I think it's a little disingenuous for you to reframe Stallman's viewpoint as 'basic human decency' since it implies that anyone who disagrees isn't a decent human being.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    It's only disingenuous if it isn't meant.
- jbandela1 11y ago
  It being basic human decency is actually an argument against the GPL. One of the worst things you can do is make basic human decency a legal obligation. If every time someone did something nice for me, I was worried about now having a legal obligation to do something, the world would be a much worse place. Basic human decency should be freely given and freely received with no legal obligations. Let karma decide about basic human decency, not the courts.
  - nsgi 11y ago
    On the other hand, most crimes also go against basic human decency, so something being basic human decency is not always an argument against it being a legal obligation.
  - belorn 11y ago
    That is a common argument on why copyright should not exist. Every time someone do something nice and want to share their favorite song or movie to me, I am told by society that they are doing something wrong and I have a legal obligation to decline. Its crazy, basic human decency should be freely given and freely received with no legal limitations. The courts should not be involved.
    - jbandela1 11y ago
      This is not an analogous situation. With open source or basic human decency, I am sharing something that I have a right to (either code I created, or my time/energy). It is not basic human decency for me to give your money away without your consent to someone else.
      - belorn 11y ago
        If you consider that copyright is equal to someones money, you should really respect their choice in what situation they are consenting to have it getting shared! But why did you say that the world would be a worse place if every time someone did something nice to you, you would have to care about the legal obligation of that act? You either respect that authors has copyright, or you don't. I could never respect someones opinion if they thought that only their copyright is valid.
- cyphar 11y ago
  > Forget Stallman. It's basic human decency. If I benefit from someone else's work, the least I can do is let others benefit from my work as well. "Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL. Have you considered why people use the GPL? It isn't to stop companies from using their code, it's to stop people from making the code proprietary. There's no clause in the GPL that says "No companies allowed, lol." Companies can (and do) benefit from the work of people who put their code under the GPL. Just because I care more about assuring the freedom of my users than the "right" of a company to make proprietary software using my code doesn't mean that I don't have basic human decency. I'd argue the opposite, I just don't have basic corporate decency.
  - WayneBro 11y ago
    > "Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL. He was arguing for the GPL. > Have you considered why people use the GPL? It isn't to stop companies from using their code, it's to stop people from making the code proprietary. That's one reason. Another reason is that they have no choice to choose GPL since maybe they're building on a GPL system. Another entirely different reason people choose the GPL - to keep customers paying for their services. Some people also choose the GPL because they just do whatever their peers do. There are lots of reasons, not just the one that you stated. Also, I would argue that "making the code proprietary" is a very inaccurate phrase. If I take your GPL code, make some changes and then sell it without providing the source code, am I making your code proprietary? No. Because your code is still available. I'd be making a derived work proprietary, not the original code.
    - cyphar 11y ago
      > > "Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL. > He was arguing for the GPL. Whoops, I guess it was too subtle for me. :P > Another reason is that they have no choice to choose GPL since maybe they're building on a GPL system. Fair point, this is what happened to GeoGebra (which has a GPLv3 core, but all of the other stuff is proprietary -- which makes packaging it quite tricky and they seem to contradict themselves in their licensing documents). > Another entirely different reason people choose the GPL - to keep customers paying for their services. How would that work? Do you have an example? I would assume that since the person has a program that is under the GPL, they have no obligation to continue paying anyone (unless they require support they cannot do themselves -- but even then they don't need to pay the vendor they can pay any developer). > Some people also choose the GPL because they just do whatever their peers do. This is a fair point, but I'd hope the peer pressure is accompanied by some explanation of why that group decided to use the GPL. That reason may or may not be because of user freedom, but at least it would make the developers less like lemmings. > There are lots of reasons, not just the one that you stated. I'd argue the other examples are in the minority, but I may be wrong (since I don't have any evidence to back up that assertion). > Also, I would argue that "making the code proprietary" is a very inaccurate phrase. If I take your GPL code, make some changes and then sell it without providing the source code, am I making your code proprietary? No. Because your code is still available. I'd be making a derived work proprietary, not the original code. A proprietary fork is still a proprietary version of a free program. Sure, you might argue that since it's a fork it's "less bad", but if the proprietary fork becomes more popular than the original it's an overall blow to free software. Not to mention that that would be a GPL violation.

valarauca1 11y ago

GPLv3 has a lot of provisions concerning how companies may/may not litigate patients. Apple's legal strategies don't allow them to comply with those requirements.

cyphar 11y ago
> GPLv3 has a lot of provisions concerning how companies may/may not litigate patients. Apple's legal strategies don't allow them to comply with those requirements. In regards to the particular piece of software being licensed. The patent provisions are akin to a copyleft Apache 2. Since companies are very happy to use the Apache 2 to avoid lawsuits I'm (not) surprised that they don't want to extend the same protections to their users with the GPLv3.

lottin 11y ago

Forget Stallman. It's basic human decency. If I benefit from someone else's work, the least I can do is let others benefit from my work as well.

true_religion 11y ago
I wouldn't say that's the least you can do. That's actually coming quite close to the most that would do. I think it's a little disingenuous for you to reframe Stallman's viewpoint as 'basic human decency' since it implies that anyone who disagrees isn't a decent human being.
- icebraining 11y ago
  It's only disingenuous if it isn't meant.
jbandela1 11y ago
It being basic human decency is actually an argument against the GPL. One of the worst things you can do is make basic human decency a legal obligation. If every time someone did something nice for me, I was worried about now having a legal obligation to do something, the world would be a much worse place. Basic human decency should be freely given and freely received with no legal obligations. Let karma decide about basic human decency, not the courts.
- nsgi 11y ago
  On the other hand, most crimes also go against basic human decency, so something being basic human decency is not always an argument against it being a legal obligation.
- belorn 11y ago
  That is a common argument on why copyright should not exist. Every time someone do something nice and want to share their favorite song or movie to me, I am told by society that they are doing something wrong and I have a legal obligation to decline. Its crazy, basic human decency should be freely given and freely received with no legal limitations. The courts should not be involved.
  - jbandela1 11y ago
    This is not an analogous situation. With open source or basic human decency, I am sharing something that I have a right to (either code I created, or my time/energy). It is not basic human decency for me to give your money away without your consent to someone else.
    - belorn 11y ago
      If you consider that copyright is equal to someones money, you should really respect their choice in what situation they are consenting to have it getting shared! But why did you say that the world would be a worse place if every time someone did something nice to you, you would have to care about the legal obligation of that act? You either respect that authors has copyright, or you don't. I could never respect someones opinion if they thought that only their copyright is valid.
cyphar 11y ago
> Forget Stallman. It's basic human decency. If I benefit from someone else's work, the least I can do is let others benefit from my work as well. "Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL. Have you considered why people use the GPL? It isn't to stop companies from using their code, it's to stop people from making the code proprietary. There's no clause in the GPL that says "No companies allowed, lol." Companies can (and do) benefit from the work of people who put their code under the GPL. Just because I care more about assuring the freedom of my users than the "right" of a company to make proprietary software using my code doesn't mean that I don't have basic human decency. I'd argue the opposite, I just don't have basic corporate decency.
- WayneBro 11y ago
  > "Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL. He was arguing for the GPL. > Have you considered why people use the GPL? It isn't to stop companies from using their code, it's to stop people from making the code proprietary. That's one reason. Another reason is that they have no choice to choose GPL since maybe they're building on a GPL system. Another entirely different reason people choose the GPL - to keep customers paying for their services. Some people also choose the GPL because they just do whatever their peers do. There are lots of reasons, not just the one that you stated. Also, I would argue that "making the code proprietary" is a very inaccurate phrase. If I take your GPL code, make some changes and then sell it without providing the source code, am I making your code proprietary? No. Because your code is still available. I'd be making a derived work proprietary, not the original code.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    > > "Basic human decency" is not an argument against the GPL. > He was arguing for the GPL. Whoops, I guess it was too subtle for me. :P > Another reason is that they have no choice to choose GPL since maybe they're building on a GPL system. Fair point, this is what happened to GeoGebra (which has a GPLv3 core, but all of the other stuff is proprietary -- which makes packaging it quite tricky and they seem to contradict themselves in their licensing documents). > Another entirely different reason people choose the GPL - to keep customers paying for their services. How would that work? Do you have an example? I would assume that since the person has a program that is under the GPL, they have no obligation to continue paying anyone (unless they require support they cannot do themselves -- but even then they don't need to pay the vendor they can pay any developer). > Some people also choose the GPL because they just do whatever their peers do. This is a fair point, but I'd hope the peer pressure is accompanied by some explanation of why that group decided to use the GPL. That reason may or may not be because of user freedom, but at least it would make the developers less like lemmings. > There are lots of reasons, not just the one that you stated. I'd argue the other examples are in the minority, but I may be wrong (since I don't have any evidence to back up that assertion). > Also, I would argue that "making the code proprietary" is a very inaccurate phrase. If I take your GPL code, make some changes and then sell it without providing the source code, am I making your code proprietary? No. Because your code is still available. I'd be making a derived work proprietary, not the original code. A proprietary fork is still a proprietary version of a free program. Sure, you might argue that since it's a fork it's "less bad", but if the proprietary fork becomes more popular than the original it's an overall blow to free software. Not to mention that that would be a GPL violation.