7 ms·

This is quite an improvement from the olden days when a certain Microsoft executive described the GPL as a cancer, and open source in general as a thing to avoi

by chha 10y ago

This is quite an improvement from the olden days when a certain Microsoft executive described the GPL as a cancer, and open source in general as a thing to avoid

josteink 10y ago
> This is quite an improvement from the olden days when a certain Microsoft executive described the GPL as a cancer, and open source in general as a thing to avoid Absolutely. And don't take this the wrong way... I much appreciate the improvements. But there's still a very strong trend that Microsoft code contributions tend to be in MIT or similarly permissively licensed projects. They still tend to avoid the GPL where possible. (Disclaimer: Have contributed code and patches. I don't personally don't mind permissive licenses)
- bad_user 10y ago
  The problem of these licenses is that they don't come with patents grants. Which given that this is Microsoft we are talking about, it's a big deal. Of course, their projects does come with a patents license, in addition to the copyright license, but it's unclear to me whether this license applies to derivative works for example. I'm not a lawyer of course and I have a very limited understanding, but interpreting their license as an English text, I really don't think it applies to derivate works. Would like an analysis of somebody knowledgeable, because a project that can't be safely forked isn't open source. Here's their license: https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT Anyway, my point is that I would have preferred something like the Apache License, which is still permissive, but was written by lawyers that know what they are doing and has an explicit patents grant in it. You see, people think of BSD and MIT as being "permissive", but that's only true as far as the copyright law is concerned. Patents are a whole different thing.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Yeah, but when MS used their own MIT-like license with patent grant and nuclear patent option, people hated it. They have made certain guarantees in the past wrt ASP.Net bits and other areas... MS seems to have been mostly in favor of live and let live wrt patents on their open-source software, it would be a colossal mistake for them to sue over patent use on their open-source software, short of defensively against someone suing them over patents.
douche 10y ago
If you're trying to write commercial software and make money off of it, the GPL is a cancer. MIT or the MS-PL is much more practical.
- hjek 10y ago
  "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible-just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding. Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on." from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
  - richardwhiuk 10y ago
    You can't practically charge for distribution though - your sell it to one person, and they'll upload it to an FTP archive server.
    - spacelizard 10y ago
      The same is true of literally every piece of software ever distributed regardless of license.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        False. Because then you can sue that person for the damages incurred by their violation of the license.
    - mikegerwitz 10y ago
      Sure---that's sharing with your friends and neighbors, and that's a fundamental freedom. But many/most will follow the project directly. You can offer the source code to build yourself , or provide a convenient binary/installer for those who either don't want to or can't (for example). This is especially prevalent for mobile OS's, where building is an unfamiliar task or PITA for many, even hackers. Would I personally? No. But I respect that decision.
Waterluvian 10y ago
Ooh who? Ballmer?
toomanythings2 10y ago
I'm just here to remind people that this same executive still ran Microsoft just two years ago.
WayneBro 10y ago
GPL is a cancer. That's why people vastly prefer something more like the MIT license these days.
- EdSharkey 10y ago
  Yes. If you're the original copyright holder, you only give others cancer with the GPL. As the the copyright holder, you are licensing your code to others and as such, you subject yourself to whatever terms you want. But those who accept the terms of your copyleft license are bound to all the cancerous viral terms you set. As a user, I prefer licenses like MIT that just give the code away with some reasonable strings attached. As a pip-squeak creator, I have to admit the copyleft licenses are attractive - the more viral and toxic (like AGPL), the better! I like being able to show off my clean and valuable code and have some reasonable expectation that no big corporation will rip me off. But then, universities and hobbyists will have full run of my code and that suits me fine. Am I greedy? Am I stingy to think of my code this way? Should I be happy that anyone would see fit to use my code and thus maximize that chance by licensing with MIT? Or is no value ever generated with all the codes being completely free and open? I wrestle with this.

by chha 10y ago

This is quite an improvement from the olden days when a certain Microsoft executive described the GPL as a cancer, and open source in general as a thing to avoid

josteink 10y ago

> This is quite an improvement from the olden days when a certain Microsoft executive described the GPL as a cancer, and open source in general as a thing to avoid Absolutely. And don't take this the wrong way... I much appreciate the improvements. But there's still a very strong trend that Microsoft code contributions tend to be in MIT or similarly permissively licensed projects. They still tend to avoid the GPL where possible. (Disclaimer: Have contributed code and patches. I don't personally don't mind permissive licenses)

bad_user 10y ago
The problem of these licenses is that they don't come with patents grants. Which given that this is Microsoft we are talking about, it's a big deal. Of course, their projects does come with a patents license, in addition to the copyright license, but it's unclear to me whether this license applies to derivative works for example. I'm not a lawyer of course and I have a very limited understanding, but interpreting their license as an English text, I really don't think it applies to derivate works. Would like an analysis of somebody knowledgeable, because a project that can't be safely forked isn't open source. Here's their license: https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT Anyway, my point is that I would have preferred something like the Apache License, which is still permissive, but was written by lawyers that know what they are doing and has an explicit patents grant in it. You see, people think of BSD and MIT as being "permissive", but that's only true as far as the copyright law is concerned. Patents are a whole different thing.
- tracker1 10y ago
  Yeah, but when MS used their own MIT-like license with patent grant and nuclear patent option, people hated it. They have made certain guarantees in the past wrt ASP.Net bits and other areas... MS seems to have been mostly in favor of live and let live wrt patents on their open-source software, it would be a colossal mistake for them to sue over patent use on their open-source software, short of defensively against someone suing them over patents.

douche 10y ago

If you're trying to write commercial software and make money off of it, the GPL is a cancer. MIT or the MS-PL is much more practical.

hjek 10y ago
"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible-just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding. Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on." from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- richardwhiuk 10y ago
  You can't practically charge for distribution though - your sell it to one person, and they'll upload it to an FTP archive server.
  - spacelizard 10y ago
    The same is true of literally every piece of software ever distributed regardless of license.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      False. Because then you can sue that person for the damages incurred by their violation of the license.
  - mikegerwitz 10y ago
    Sure---that's sharing with your friends and neighbors, and that's a fundamental freedom. But many/most will follow the project directly. You can offer the source code to build yourself , or provide a convenient binary/installer for those who either don't want to or can't (for example). This is especially prevalent for mobile OS's, where building is an unfamiliar task or PITA for many, even hackers. Would I personally? No. But I respect that decision.

Waterluvian 10y ago

Ooh who? Ballmer?

toomanythings2 10y ago

I'm just here to remind people that this same executive still ran Microsoft just two years ago.

WayneBro 10y ago

GPL is a cancer. That's why people vastly prefer something more like the MIT license these days.

EdSharkey 10y ago
Yes. If you're the original copyright holder, you only give others cancer with the GPL. As the the copyright holder, you are licensing your code to others and as such, you subject yourself to whatever terms you want. But those who accept the terms of your copyleft license are bound to all the cancerous viral terms you set. As a user, I prefer licenses like MIT that just give the code away with some reasonable strings attached. As a pip-squeak creator, I have to admit the copyleft licenses are attractive - the more viral and toxic (like AGPL), the better! I like being able to show off my clean and valuable code and have some reasonable expectation that no big corporation will rip me off. But then, universities and hobbyists will have full run of my code and that suits me fine. Am I greedy? Am I stingy to think of my code this way? Should I be happy that anyone would see fit to use my code and thus maximize that chance by licensing with MIT? Or is no value ever generated with all the codes being completely free and open? I wrestle with this.