5 ms·

While I can appreciate that point of view (i.e. as a vendor), the definition does depend on whose POV you are looking at it from. From an end-user (individual

by blihp 10y ago

While I can appreciate that point of view (i.e. as a vendor), the definition does depend on whose POV you are looking at it from. From an end-user (individual or business) POV, the GPL is absolutely 'freely redistributable' what you're talking about is your inability to limit that ability. That's the GPL doing its job.

m_mueller 10y ago
> That's the GPL doing its job. It also makes it really hard to earn a living with actual software (not services) that depends on GPL.
- lisivka 10y ago
  Buy commercial licenses from authors of GPL code, so they will earn something too.
  - type0 10y ago
    It is astonishing how many people don't know that they could do it.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    I can see how that works for code that has zero compile-time dependencies on other copyleft software. I.e. a very limited usecase. Or am I getting something wrong?
- blihp 10y ago
  Yes, you're absolutely correct. The GPL, and resulting GPL'd software, does not exist for the benefit of commercial software vendors. While some business models are viable under it, that's a side-effect rather than an objective of it.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    i.e. it's condemned to be a hobby for almost everyone involved, besides some key players who can live off of donations or those who sell services based on mostly other people's software.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Selling services 'based on mostly other people's software' is not some crime or bad thing. Servicing cars or houses made by other people is an honorable profession. So are software services. If the thing needs servicing, then I salute those who stand ready to do the dirty work.
      - m_mueller 10y ago
        And I didn't say it is. Only that it's usually the only way of building a business around GPL software. This is fine for serving some people, but it has a huge blind spot for those who mainly want to write Software and try to live off of it. IMO this is the main reason why Desktop linux never took off - you just don't have enough userland software that's ready for production use in a professional environment - see desktop publishing, audio, video etc. This sort of software is not going to be written as a hobby, it needs full time professional developers and investors who can see the ROI starting at around 1M$.
    - blihp 10y ago
      And to many it's fine if it is. The GPL wasn't created to benefit the software industry, it was a reaction to it. That's also part of the reason that some commercial interests (most famously Apple) have been moving in the direction of MIT/BSD-style licenses. It's OK to align your efforts with licenses that match your requirements. The GPL is most aligned with the interests of users, not commercial developers. MIT/BSD is the reverse.
- erlehmann_ 10y ago
  All of the software I have written for money is free software. In some fields it is hard to not do that: Wordpress plugins, for example, are GPL licensed by default. Can you elaborate what problems you have run into?
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    How would you solve the following use-case: You want users to be able to try your software for non commercial use, but you want them to pay for commercial. I don't see how GPL licenses can do that for you. In fact, I don't know any common OSS license that has non-commercial limitations with the option of purchasing a commercial license.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Creative Commons works that way. So its possible.
      - m_mueller 10y ago
        People keep saying CC, but that license has never been intended for software. Did it ever stand up to a trial in court for this usecase? See also [1]. Why isn't there something like CC NC geared for software? [1] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_... > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available.
        belorn 10y ago
        Is it important if court has tested the license? A software license is like a will, in that it describes the authors intention in a legal binding document. A infringer would need to prove in court that their activity does not conflict with the requirements of the license, and the words "non-commercial" would be quite hard to sneak around. The main reason that FSF and similar activly advice against such license is primarily because "non-commercial" is ambiguous and there is a clear risk for the recipients/re-distributors if the original author starts to act abusive. A common example I have heard is public schools vs private school, where the later is a commercial activity and the former is common viewed as not. How that would translate to a student using it in a student project would be up in the air. If I where you, I would instead copy the license of the unreal engine. That is, you don't look at the commercial status but rather on profits from products that include your work. If someone is earning profits, regardless of the nature of the organization who do so, then a cut is required to be given to you. Its simple, it fixes the school problem above, and there is a "industry" example to use if it ever became a court case. The big drawback is that its not an open source compatible license.

by blihp 10y ago

m_mueller 10y ago

> That's the GPL doing its job. It also makes it really hard to earn a living with actual software (not services) that depends on GPL.

lisivka 10y ago
Buy commercial licenses from authors of GPL code, so they will earn something too.
- type0 10y ago
  It is astonishing how many people don't know that they could do it.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  I can see how that works for code that has zero compile-time dependencies on other copyleft software. I.e. a very limited usecase. Or am I getting something wrong?
blihp 10y ago
Yes, you're absolutely correct. The GPL, and resulting GPL'd software, does not exist for the benefit of commercial software vendors. While some business models are viable under it, that's a side-effect rather than an objective of it.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  i.e. it's condemned to be a hobby for almost everyone involved, besides some key players who can live off of donations or those who sell services based on mostly other people's software.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Selling services 'based on mostly other people's software' is not some crime or bad thing. Servicing cars or houses made by other people is an honorable profession. So are software services. If the thing needs servicing, then I salute those who stand ready to do the dirty work.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      And I didn't say it is. Only that it's usually the only way of building a business around GPL software. This is fine for serving some people, but it has a huge blind spot for those who mainly want to write Software and try to live off of it. IMO this is the main reason why Desktop linux never took off - you just don't have enough userland software that's ready for production use in a professional environment - see desktop publishing, audio, video etc. This sort of software is not going to be written as a hobby, it needs full time professional developers and investors who can see the ROI starting at around 1M$.
  - blihp 10y ago
    And to many it's fine if it is. The GPL wasn't created to benefit the software industry, it was a reaction to it. That's also part of the reason that some commercial interests (most famously Apple) have been moving in the direction of MIT/BSD-style licenses. It's OK to align your efforts with licenses that match your requirements. The GPL is most aligned with the interests of users, not commercial developers. MIT/BSD is the reverse.
erlehmann_ 10y ago
All of the software I have written for money is free software. In some fields it is hard to not do that: Wordpress plugins, for example, are GPL licensed by default. Can you elaborate what problems you have run into?
- m_mueller 10y ago
  How would you solve the following use-case: You want users to be able to try your software for non commercial use, but you want them to pay for commercial. I don't see how GPL licenses can do that for you. In fact, I don't know any common OSS license that has non-commercial limitations with the option of purchasing a commercial license.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Creative Commons works that way. So its possible.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      People keep saying CC, but that license has never been intended for software. Did it ever stand up to a trial in court for this usecase? See also [1]. Why isn't there something like CC NC geared for software? [1] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_... > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available.
      - belorn 10y ago
        Is it important if court has tested the license? A software license is like a will, in that it describes the authors intention in a legal binding document. A infringer would need to prove in court that their activity does not conflict with the requirements of the license, and the words "non-commercial" would be quite hard to sneak around. The main reason that FSF and similar activly advice against such license is primarily because "non-commercial" is ambiguous and there is a clear risk for the recipients/re-distributors if the original author starts to act abusive. A common example I have heard is public schools vs private school, where the later is a commercial activity and the former is common viewed as not. How that would translate to a student using it in a student project would be up in the air. If I where you, I would instead copy the license of the unreal engine. That is, you don't look at the commercial status but rather on profits from products that include your work. If someone is earning profits, regardless of the nature of the organization who do so, then a cut is required to be given to you. Its simple, it fixes the school problem above, and there is a "industry" example to use if it ever became a court case. The big drawback is that its not an open source compatible license.