5 ms·

Companies don't want to use GPL licensed software because they want to build their closed source software on top of it and thats difficult. Currently instead o

by chme 10y ago

Companies don't want to use GPL licensed software because they want to build their closed source software on top of it and thats difficult. Currently instead of just releasing their software under a GPLv2 or GPLv3 compliant license, thus giving customers the right to change and adjust it however they like, they choose to withhold those rights and put the software under a proprietary license. A company that does this is clearly not interested in empowering their customers and should not be of any consideration when discussing an ideal customer rights issue like the GPL. IMO GPL is not there to be liked by companies, just like the green party is not liked by industrialists. GPL assigns legal obligations to companies and rights to customers. I fear that if GPLv4 is designed to be more likable to companies, rights for the consumer will suffer.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "Companies don't want to use GPL licensed software because they want to build their closed source software on top of it and thats difficult." No, it goes beyond that. I've heard stories where IT departments have blocked GPL software from being used (as end users, not as an integral part of a software product) due to it being unclear where the GPL starts and ends. The article gives an example of a legal clarity issue in the 'dynamically linked' section: "Most of what is in GPLv3 are important, clear improvements. However, they’re clouded and subsumed by one big unknown – the dynamic link. Apple, for example, was forced to stop contributing to the open-source project Samba, and instead had to build its own SMB file server, based on the final GPLv2 code release of Samba. Now, Samba is deprived of code contributions that Apple would otherwise have been happy to share. Why? Because Apple is afraid that someone might argue that Samba is “dynamically linked” to OS X, and in turn (per rules of GPLv3), force Apple to share the entire source code of OS X. This is stupid. But some argue even typing a file name into a terminal window constitutes a dynamic link. Others argue you must use some shared library, where code natively interacts in an intended manner, such as a dylib or .dll file to create this scenario. Vagaries of this degree should not be in the GPL. It should be scrapped, or at least, replaced with clear and concise definitions that most industry experts in engineering (and product management) can explain in human terms."
- erlehmann_ 10y ago
  Apple was not “forced” to abandon GPLv3 software. GPLv3 contains two key provisions Apple seems to have a problem with: It forbids locking down hardware so that users cannot actually run software they want (tivoization) and it forbids patent lawsuits against users of the GPLv3 software. Apple's hostility towards GPLv3 very likely has nothing to do with dynamic linking.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    That's your projection of the events. I'm confident if you looked in the Samba mailing lists you could get a more definitive view of why Apple did what they did.
    - erlehmann_ 10y ago
      If you are confident about this, please explain why you think Apple did remove GPLv3 software and provide evidence. I have searched for a few minutes and did not find anything.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Hmm, yeah, looking into this Apple devs didn't seem to have discussed the change on the Samba mailing lists, earliest news item I can find about it is this, but it's from unnamed sources... http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_server_apple_replaces_samba_for_windows_networking_services.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10...
        wolfgke 10y ago
        I can't find any indication in this article that Apple's reason was the fear of dynamic linking as you claimed (in cotrast to erlehmann_'s claim that Apple had problems with the "no locking down" and "no patent lawsuits" clauses in the GPLv3).
- swhipple 10y ago
ashitlerferad 10y ago
> Currently instead of just releasing their software under a GPLv2 or GPLv3 compliant license HPE now has a "default to GPLv3" policy for new code that they write.
- PeCaN 10y ago
  HPE being HP Enterprise? Interesting, I hadn't heard that. When did they institute that policy? Good on them.
  - ashitlerferad 10y ago
    Yes. I think it came after this talk by Martin Fink: https://lwn.net/Articles/660428/ https://lwn.net/Articles/660428/

by chme 10y ago

ZenoArrow 10y ago

> "Companies don't want to use GPL licensed software because they want to build their closed source software on top of it and thats difficult." No, it goes beyond that. I've heard stories where IT departments have blocked GPL software from being used (as end users, not as an integral part of a software product) due to it being unclear where the GPL starts and ends. The article gives an example of a legal clarity issue in the 'dynamically linked' section: "Most of what is in GPLv3 are important, clear improvements. However, they’re clouded and subsumed by one big unknown – the dynamic link. Apple, for example, was forced to stop contributing to the open-source project Samba, and instead had to build its own SMB file server, based on the final GPLv2 code release of Samba. Now, Samba is deprived of code contributions that Apple would otherwise have been happy to share. Why? Because Apple is afraid that someone might argue that Samba is “dynamically linked” to OS X, and in turn (per rules of GPLv3), force Apple to share the entire source code of OS X. This is stupid. But some argue even typing a file name into a terminal window constitutes a dynamic link. Others argue you must use some shared library, where code natively interacts in an intended manner, such as a dylib or .dll file to create this scenario. Vagaries of this degree should not be in the GPL. It should be scrapped, or at least, replaced with clear and concise definitions that most industry experts in engineering (and product management) can explain in human terms."

erlehmann_ 10y ago
Apple was not “forced” to abandon GPLv3 software. GPLv3 contains two key provisions Apple seems to have a problem with: It forbids locking down hardware so that users cannot actually run software they want (tivoization) and it forbids patent lawsuits against users of the GPLv3 software. Apple's hostility towards GPLv3 very likely has nothing to do with dynamic linking.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  That's your projection of the events. I'm confident if you looked in the Samba mailing lists you could get a more definitive view of why Apple did what they did.
  - erlehmann_ 10y ago
    If you are confident about this, please explain why you think Apple did remove GPLv3 software and provide evidence. I have searched for a few minutes and did not find anything.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      Hmm, yeah, looking into this Apple devs didn't seem to have discussed the change on the Samba mailing lists, earliest news item I can find about it is this, but it's from unnamed sources... http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_server_apple_replaces_samba_for_windows_networking_services.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10...
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        I can't find any indication in this article that Apple's reason was the fear of dynamic linking as you claimed (in cotrast to erlehmann_'s claim that Apple had problems with the "no locking down" and "no patent lawsuits" clauses in the GPLv3).
swhipple 10y ago

ashitlerferad 10y ago

> Currently instead of just releasing their software under a GPLv2 or GPLv3 compliant license HPE now has a "default to GPLv3" policy for new code that they write.

PeCaN 10y ago
HPE being HP Enterprise? Interesting, I hadn't heard that. When did they institute that policy? Good on them.
- ashitlerferad 10y ago
  Yes. I think it came after this talk by Martin Fink: https://lwn.net/Articles/660428/ https://lwn.net/Articles/660428/