11 ms·

I was going to say exactly the same thing. I've been spending much of the last year developing some open source code (a data flow ontology). Was thinking of us

by musesum 10y ago

I was going to say exactly the same thing. I've been spending much of the last year developing some open source code (a data flow ontology). Was thinking of using GPLv3. But, now leaning towards MIT. The first app to use it will be a visual music synth for iOS. Ironically, Stallman just reminded me about GPL's philosophical baggage.

bitL 10y ago
Once some company rips your visual synth off, files patents protecting stuff you programmed, makes money off your work without giving you back nothing and sues you, you might understand why the baggage in GPL3 is necessary - it copes with the real world not with a world full of buddies cheering for each other.
- rakoo 10y ago
  This is not what the GPL is about. It is built to protect the user's freedom, not the developer's freedom.
  - bitL 10y ago
    AFAIK it's both; for developer the requirement of a company to give all changes back to community means they won't be cheated on by stealing their work, not giving them credits and making business off their work for free. They have to contribute back if they decide to use a developer's work, raising their credit/fame that developer can directly capitalize on.
    - rakoo 10y ago
      No, you're describing something much closer to the patent system which is not the same as Open Source and even further than the Free-Software-As-Defined-By-GPL view. The latter explicitely requires all changes to be available to the user of the software, but doesn't require anything at all regarding the original developer(s). That those developers get the changes back is purely a demonstration of the company's goodwill, or it may also happen because the original developer also happen to be using the modified version, but that's not always the case (example: set-top boxes with modified Linux version. If you're not using one, you're not entitled to the modified Linux kernel, even if you are a Linux contributor) You're saying that the aim is to prevent somebody to make money on your work. This is absolutely not the goal of Open Source or Free Software. There is no issue in somebody else getting rich by using your work. A rough summary of both would be: * Open Source: Stop reinventing the wheel every time. Somebody writes an implementation of a javascript interpreter, and everybody who needs one just uses it instead of writing one from scratch. If they find ways to make it better, they share their knowledge so that others can build on top. * Free Software: As a user, I want to be able to understand how the software works, so I can fix it myself or ask somebody I know and trust to fix it if it's broken, or improve it if there are ways to do it. The commercial side is neither seen as positive or negative; it's completely orthogonal to the question. My personal opinion is that I don't see why I should prevent somebody to earn money based on my work. To think that a software is enough to make a business and you could have made as much money as them if you just sold it is misunderstanding the domain. If they're better at it, why would I prevent them ? Note that regarding Open Source and Free Software, I don't have a problem with any of those views. It's just important to understand the difference in philosophy if we want to understand why both styles exist and why some might choose one "side" over the other. I'll agree that in practice both styles are largely overlapping.

by musesum 10y ago

bitL 10y ago

Once some company rips your visual synth off, files patents protecting stuff you programmed, makes money off your work without giving you back nothing and sues you, you might understand why the baggage in GPL3 is necessary - it copes with the real world not with a world full of buddies cheering for each other.

rakoo 10y ago
This is not what the GPL is about. It is built to protect the user's freedom, not the developer's freedom.
- bitL 10y ago
  AFAIK it's both; for developer the requirement of a company to give all changes back to community means they won't be cheated on by stealing their work, not giving them credits and making business off their work for free. They have to contribute back if they decide to use a developer's work, raising their credit/fame that developer can directly capitalize on.
  - rakoo 10y ago
    No, you're describing something much closer to the patent system which is not the same as Open Source and even further than the Free-Software-As-Defined-By-GPL view. The latter explicitely requires all changes to be available to the user of the software, but doesn't require anything at all regarding the original developer(s). That those developers get the changes back is purely a demonstration of the company's goodwill, or it may also happen because the original developer also happen to be using the modified version, but that's not always the case (example: set-top boxes with modified Linux version. If you're not using one, you're not entitled to the modified Linux kernel, even if you are a Linux contributor) You're saying that the aim is to prevent somebody to make money on your work. This is absolutely not the goal of Open Source or Free Software. There is no issue in somebody else getting rich by using your work. A rough summary of both would be: * Open Source: Stop reinventing the wheel every time. Somebody writes an implementation of a javascript interpreter, and everybody who needs one just uses it instead of writing one from scratch. If they find ways to make it better, they share their knowledge so that others can build on top. * Free Software: As a user, I want to be able to understand how the software works, so I can fix it myself or ask somebody I know and trust to fix it if it's broken, or improve it if there are ways to do it. The commercial side is neither seen as positive or negative; it's completely orthogonal to the question. My personal opinion is that I don't see why I should prevent somebody to earn money based on my work. To think that a software is enough to make a business and you could have made as much money as them if you just sold it is misunderstanding the domain. If they're better at it, why would I prevent them ? Note that regarding Open Source and Free Software, I don't have a problem with any of those views. It's just important to understand the difference in philosophy if we want to understand why both styles exist and why some might choose one "side" over the other. I'll agree that in practice both styles are largely overlapping.