4 ms·

GPL is about user freedom (you can access the code you execute), BSD/MIT is about developer freedom (you can copy paste the code). This explain why developers

by Narann 10y ago

GPL is about user freedom (you can access the code you execute), BSD/MIT is about developer freedom (you can copy paste the code). This explain why developers tent to prefer BSD/MIT licences, they can use code without restriction and restrict their users to access it. It's just that GPL focus on protecting users, not developers.

erlehmann_ 10y ago
Strategic reasons for choosing different licensing models exist. The Free Software Foundation itself reccommends using different licensing models for software libraries depending on the situation: • No copyleft for libraries that implement proprietary standards competing with open standards, to further adoption of the implemented standard among proprietary software developers. • Weak copyleft for libraries that implement the same features as existing proprietary software, to further adoption of the library among proprietary software developers. • Strong copyleft for libraries that “do not face entrenched noncopylefted or nonfree competition”. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html
- saosebastiao 10y ago
  > No copyleft for libraries that implement proprietary standards competing with open standards, Shouldn't that be the other way around?
  - erlehmann_ 10y ago
    Yes.
- the_why_of_y 10y ago
  Your first point is summarized the wrong way, it is "No copyleft for libraries that implement open standards competing with proprietary standards".
  - erlehmann_ 10y ago
    Indeed. Sorry!
_ph_ 10y ago
That is wrong. As a user you can of course access any code distributed under BSD/MIT as well. Any user is free to refuse to install software which does not come with its code. GPL is the attempt of forcing developers to open source all their code. Even the one not built on top of open source software. But what freedom does the user have, if no developer had written the software in the first place? As a commercial developer, you most of the time cannot completely open source your software stack (you need to make money, trade secrets might be involved, third party licenses. However, recent history shows that many companies are willing to open source part of their stack using the BSD/MIT license.
- mintplant 10y ago
  > GPL is the attempt of forcing developers to open source all their code. That is wrong. As a developer you can of course refuse to use any software distributed under the GPL.
  - _ph_ 10y ago
    Well, it forces to open source anything "linked together" with the GPL code, even if it has no relation to it and is in no way to derived from it. So in that sense, GPL tries to force the developer to release unrelated code under GPL. Of course, as a consequence many developers refuse to use any software distributed under the GPL (as in using GPLed code in their software). I am not sure how this is a good thing.
    - prodigal_erik 10y ago
      The right to include other copylefted code is an incentive to copyleft your code. If a developer is shipping proprietary code instead of advancing the profession, I have no interest in helping them, I wish we could tell them to go to the beach and start making their own transistors.
      - _ph_ 10y ago
        No, it is not an incentive. As I cannot publish my full stack of software, GPL code is just no option for me. And why am I not "advancing the profession" if I open source as much of my code as I can? But for the license technical reasons not as GPL, but rather BSD? Your last wish of "start making their own transistors" is really funny in the context, that some of my proprietary code is actually for making transistors.

by Narann 10y ago

erlehmann_ 10y ago

Strategic reasons for choosing different licensing models exist. The Free Software Foundation itself reccommends using different licensing models for software libraries depending on the situation: • No copyleft for libraries that implement proprietary standards competing with open standards, to further adoption of the implemented standard among proprietary software developers. • Weak copyleft for libraries that implement the same features as existing proprietary software, to further adoption of the library among proprietary software developers. • Strong copyleft for libraries that “do not face entrenched noncopylefted or nonfree competition”. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html

saosebastiao 10y ago
> No copyleft for libraries that implement proprietary standards competing with open standards, Shouldn't that be the other way around?
- erlehmann_ 10y ago
  Yes.
the_why_of_y 10y ago
Your first point is summarized the wrong way, it is "No copyleft for libraries that implement open standards competing with proprietary standards".
- erlehmann_ 10y ago
  Indeed. Sorry!

_ph_ 10y ago

That is wrong. As a user you can of course access any code distributed under BSD/MIT as well. Any user is free to refuse to install software which does not come with its code. GPL is the attempt of forcing developers to open source all their code. Even the one not built on top of open source software. But what freedom does the user have, if no developer had written the software in the first place? As a commercial developer, you most of the time cannot completely open source your software stack (you need to make money, trade secrets might be involved, third party licenses. However, recent history shows that many companies are willing to open source part of their stack using the BSD/MIT license.

mintplant 10y ago
> GPL is the attempt of forcing developers to open source all their code. That is wrong. As a developer you can of course refuse to use any software distributed under the GPL.
- _ph_ 10y ago
  Well, it forces to open source anything "linked together" with the GPL code, even if it has no relation to it and is in no way to derived from it. So in that sense, GPL tries to force the developer to release unrelated code under GPL. Of course, as a consequence many developers refuse to use any software distributed under the GPL (as in using GPLed code in their software). I am not sure how this is a good thing.
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    The right to include other copylefted code is an incentive to copyleft your code. If a developer is shipping proprietary code instead of advancing the profession, I have no interest in helping them, I wish we could tell them to go to the beach and start making their own transistors.
    - _ph_ 10y ago
      No, it is not an incentive. As I cannot publish my full stack of software, GPL code is just no option for me. And why am I not "advancing the profession" if I open source as much of my code as I can? But for the license technical reasons not as GPL, but rather BSD? Your last wish of "start making their own transistors" is really funny in the context, that some of my proprietary code is actually for making transistors.