4 ms·

I think (L)GPL has reached a point where in most cases it is self-defeating. It does not encourage adaption in the same way for example MIT does. This means tha

by amag 11y ago

I think (L)GPL has reached a point where in most cases it is self-defeating. It does not encourage adaption in the same way for example MIT does. This means that copy-left becomes a moot point. Open-source is happening (just look at Microsoft for example). But it's happening not so much thanks to GPL, but rather despite it, out of the realization that we all have something to gain by sharing. IMHO GPL hinders sharing because it puts a lawyer between the developer and the code.

tracker1 11y ago
GPL prevents someone from using/enhancing your software in a closed fashion.. MIT does not... In the end, it depends on the goals, and usefulness of your project, and how it's used and distributed.
cyphar 11y ago
GPL doesn't hinder sharing. GPL hinders proprietary software. Now, if you don't believe in the morals behind the free software movement, then you might decide that hindering proprietary software is hindering "sharing with companies". It's a very odd kind of sharing to give something to a company and they make it proprietary so they don't give anything back and end up also mistreating their users.
- yazaddaruvala 11y ago
  For the record, I don't disagree with your message, I'm just trying to potentially help you get your point across better. An analogy to the above comments: "GPL hinders sharing" - "GPL doesn't hinder sharing. GPL hinders proprietary software" "Religion causes death" - "Religion doesn't cause death. Religion endorses life." When discussing highly biased points. It is always wiser to be able to acknowledge that even your bias, is the cause of some sorrow. However, despite that, it is still worthwhile. I appreciate your passion for the free software movement. But remember that in any conversation you do yourself and your position a disservice by brushing off practical criticisms for theoretical ideals.
- amag 11y ago
  A bit late maybe, but GPL does not only hinder proprietary software, it also prevents the use of a more permissive license, such as MIT. Personally I would never GPL any of my code because of this. I prefer a more permissive license (such as MIT or similar) but that also means I cannot put GPL code inside my code. So whenever I see GPL:ed code, whether for private (open-source) purposes or business (proprietary, closed-source), I steer clear. So if I'm not able to use the code for any purpose, does that not mean that sharing is hindered? Btw, I never said I don't believe in the morals of the free software movement, I just said I don't believe GPL is the way forward. GPL is idealistic but not very pragmatic. Open-source is the future and (ironically) a lot of big (traditionally closed-source) companies are paving the way.
koffiezet 11y ago
Sorry, but I'm far from an opensource zealot, but I think you should give the GPL license more credit than that. V2 brought opensource to the masses with Linux and the entire ecosystem/toolset that comes with it.

by amag 11y ago

tracker1 11y ago

GPL prevents someone from using/enhancing your software in a closed fashion.. MIT does not... In the end, it depends on the goals, and usefulness of your project, and how it's used and distributed.

cyphar 11y ago

GPL doesn't hinder sharing. GPL hinders proprietary software. Now, if you don't believe in the morals behind the free software movement, then you might decide that hindering proprietary software is hindering "sharing with companies". It's a very odd kind of sharing to give something to a company and they make it proprietary so they don't give anything back and end up also mistreating their users.

yazaddaruvala 11y ago
For the record, I don't disagree with your message, I'm just trying to potentially help you get your point across better. An analogy to the above comments: "GPL hinders sharing" - "GPL doesn't hinder sharing. GPL hinders proprietary software" "Religion causes death" - "Religion doesn't cause death. Religion endorses life." When discussing highly biased points. It is always wiser to be able to acknowledge that even your bias, is the cause of some sorrow. However, despite that, it is still worthwhile. I appreciate your passion for the free software movement. But remember that in any conversation you do yourself and your position a disservice by brushing off practical criticisms for theoretical ideals.
amag 11y ago
A bit late maybe, but GPL does not only hinder proprietary software, it also prevents the use of a more permissive license, such as MIT. Personally I would never GPL any of my code because of this. I prefer a more permissive license (such as MIT or similar) but that also means I cannot put GPL code inside my code. So whenever I see GPL:ed code, whether for private (open-source) purposes or business (proprietary, closed-source), I steer clear. So if I'm not able to use the code for any purpose, does that not mean that sharing is hindered? Btw, I never said I don't believe in the morals of the free software movement, I just said I don't believe GPL is the way forward. GPL is idealistic but not very pragmatic. Open-source is the future and (ironically) a lot of big (traditionally closed-source) companies are paving the way.

koffiezet 11y ago

Sorry, but I'm far from an opensource zealot, but I think you should give the GPL license more credit than that. V2 brought opensource to the masses with Linux and the entire ecosystem/toolset that comes with it.