6 ms·

I said "initiated by developers", particularly with the post-Github ecosystem in mind. In Linux, obviously, there are many GPL projects, that's not a surprise.

by cm3 10y ago

I said "initiated by developers", particularly with the post-Github ecosystem in mind. In Linux, obviously, there are many GPL projects, that's not a surprise. I'm talking about what license most developers choose who aren't working on the linux userland (or kernel). There are whole communities where liberal is the default license choice (Haskell, Erlang, Apache, BSDs, Golang).

toyg 10y ago
Sure, there are a lot of communities out there, but before you can say "most developers", you'd have to give me some numbers. My "anecdata" is exactly the opposite. Until a few years ago, most software I'd use or release was GPL, or bastardized versions like MPL. BSD was seen as legacy and MIT was fairly rare; APL was just used by the ASF. Things have changed a bit, mostly because GPL is a bit messy when applied to stuff like JS libraries (Wordpress themes were probably a turning point for many). But the GPL is still massive.
- cm3 10y ago
  I don't understand. In what way are you disagreeing with me? I didn't say there's less GPL out there. All I said is that with more open source projects popping up than in the past, and given how a random developer who understands English can also follow the BSD/MIT/ISC license text fully, how most new projects are liberally licensed, and most of the time MIT actually. GPL and Apache licenses are hard to use because you place your trust on their interpretation to lawyers, which is fine since many large projects trust it, but it's equally easy to understand how single developers or small dev teams choose, say, MIT for a new project. They don't choose the Apache license because it's a long legal document. I tried understanding it all and I failed to understand their contradictory sometimes-disclaimed-sometimes-not liability clause. Upon further inspection, I noticed that pretty much the same text is in GPL3's liability clause, so I concluded this must be something they must put in, even though as a developer to do not 100% disclaim liability as you do with MIT/BSD/ISC licenses.
  - toyg 10y ago
    I disagree because you make assumptions not backed by data and try to pass them for truth. Just because you're uneasy or not convinced by the benefits of GPL, it doesn't mean "most developers" feel the same. Show me numbers that prove your point and I might reconsider. Until then, you're free to believe what you want and I'm free to believe you're wrong.
    - cm3 10y ago
      Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I am very well aware of the benefits and can imagine when I would want a copyleft license but GPL's text is not it. Neither is Apache's license text for when I want a liberal license, but I accept it for its patent clause if that's needed. Repeating myself, unless you place your trust, which is a reasonable thing to do, with those who've vetted both licenses' texts to be fine, developers go with short licenses they fully understand. That's the argument here. If there was a well-known and short copyleft license, it could be similarly popular for new projects. I'm unaware of such a license and I'm afraid you misinterpret my argument as a copyleft vs liberal debate, but I've said that both Apache2 and GPL(2,3) suffer from an unapproachable wall of text with the cited clause existing in both and having the same semi-liability-disclaimer bug.
      - belorn 10y ago
        The length of the GPL text is mostly there to specify (limit) scope, and use specific legal terms for common legal situations. GPLv3 also add sections for license compatibility, to make it easier for violators to avoid lawsuits and continue with life if they decide enter compliance with the license, and define legal terms that is understood in US law, EU law and India/Asia. If you don't need any of that, you could just write down the four freedoms and add "must use this license" at the end. It would be almost as short as MIT, but enforcement will require a lot of common sense from the courts rather then legal precedence. I once heard a interesting idea to rewrite GPL in terms of pure permissions. It would be in theory compatible with the existing license, significant longer text, but somewhat easier to understand since it would just be a long list of explicit things which the licensee has permission to do.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Black Duck's data says that GPL (2 + 3) is the most common followed by MIT followed by APL. https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses
  - cm3 10y ago
    I've archived the link to be sure, and from what I see, MIT is first, followed by GPL2, followed by Apache. Here's the snapshot right now: http://archive.is/L4hLm http://archive.is/L4hLm (http://archive.is/L4hLm/image http://archive.is/L4hLm/image).
    - dublinben 10y ago
      Combining versions 2 and 3 of the GPL makes it larger than MIT, at 30%.
      - cm3 10y ago
        That's one way to look at it, so if you combine MIT and Apache => 42 (add BSD and ISC => 50).
        toyg 10y ago
        Still not "most" in the absolute terms that prompted my response. "More" could be argued, "most" implies a dominance that is simply not there. I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking, but I'm just trying to explain the point.
        cm3 10y ago
        I didn't cite numbers because I didn't base it on any, and it was probably sloppy to use the word "most". So, if I could go back and fix the post, I would say: "most new projects I've seen in the last few years...". Thanks for pointing out my lazy wording.
        cm3 10y ago

by cm3 10y ago

toyg 10y ago

Sure, there are a lot of communities out there, but before you can say "most developers", you'd have to give me some numbers. My "anecdata" is exactly the opposite. Until a few years ago, most software I'd use or release was GPL, or bastardized versions like MPL. BSD was seen as legacy and MIT was fairly rare; APL was just used by the ASF. Things have changed a bit, mostly because GPL is a bit messy when applied to stuff like JS libraries (Wordpress themes were probably a turning point for many). But the GPL is still massive.

cm3 10y ago
I don't understand. In what way are you disagreeing with me? I didn't say there's less GPL out there. All I said is that with more open source projects popping up than in the past, and given how a random developer who understands English can also follow the BSD/MIT/ISC license text fully, how most new projects are liberally licensed, and most of the time MIT actually. GPL and Apache licenses are hard to use because you place your trust on their interpretation to lawyers, which is fine since many large projects trust it, but it's equally easy to understand how single developers or small dev teams choose, say, MIT for a new project. They don't choose the Apache license because it's a long legal document. I tried understanding it all and I failed to understand their contradictory sometimes-disclaimed-sometimes-not liability clause. Upon further inspection, I noticed that pretty much the same text is in GPL3's liability clause, so I concluded this must be something they must put in, even though as a developer to do not 100% disclaim liability as you do with MIT/BSD/ISC licenses.
- toyg 10y ago
  I disagree because you make assumptions not backed by data and try to pass them for truth. Just because you're uneasy or not convinced by the benefits of GPL, it doesn't mean "most developers" feel the same. Show me numbers that prove your point and I might reconsider. Until then, you're free to believe what you want and I'm free to believe you're wrong.
  - cm3 10y ago
    Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're missing my point. I am very well aware of the benefits and can imagine when I would want a copyleft license but GPL's text is not it. Neither is Apache's license text for when I want a liberal license, but I accept it for its patent clause if that's needed. Repeating myself, unless you place your trust, which is a reasonable thing to do, with those who've vetted both licenses' texts to be fine, developers go with short licenses they fully understand. That's the argument here. If there was a well-known and short copyleft license, it could be similarly popular for new projects. I'm unaware of such a license and I'm afraid you misinterpret my argument as a copyleft vs liberal debate, but I've said that both Apache2 and GPL(2,3) suffer from an unapproachable wall of text with the cited clause existing in both and having the same semi-liability-disclaimer bug.
    - belorn 10y ago
      The length of the GPL text is mostly there to specify (limit) scope, and use specific legal terms for common legal situations. GPLv3 also add sections for license compatibility, to make it easier for violators to avoid lawsuits and continue with life if they decide enter compliance with the license, and define legal terms that is understood in US law, EU law and India/Asia. If you don't need any of that, you could just write down the four freedoms and add "must use this license" at the end. It would be almost as short as MIT, but enforcement will require a lot of common sense from the courts rather then legal precedence. I once heard a interesting idea to rewrite GPL in terms of pure permissions. It would be in theory compatible with the existing license, significant longer text, but somewhat easier to understand since it would just be a long list of explicit things which the licensee has permission to do.
ghaff 10y ago
Black Duck's data says that GPL (2 + 3) is the most common followed by MIT followed by APL. https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses https://www.blackducksoftware.com/top-open-source-licenses
- cm3 10y ago
  I've archived the link to be sure, and from what I see, MIT is first, followed by GPL2, followed by Apache. Here's the snapshot right now: http://archive.is/L4hLm http://archive.is/L4hLm (http://archive.is/L4hLm/image http://archive.is/L4hLm/image).
  - dublinben 10y ago
    Combining versions 2 and 3 of the GPL makes it larger than MIT, at 30%.
    - cm3 10y ago
      That's one way to look at it, so if you combine MIT and Apache => 42 (add BSD and ISC => 50).
      - toyg 10y ago
        Still not "most" in the absolute terms that prompted my response. "More" could be argued, "most" implies a dominance that is simply not there. I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking, but I'm just trying to explain the point.
        cm3 10y ago
        I didn't cite numbers because I didn't base it on any, and it was probably sloppy to use the word "most". So, if I could go back and fix the post, I would say: "most new projects I've seen in the last few years...". Thanks for pointing out my lazy wording.
        cm3 10y ago