6 ms·

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.

by douche 10y ago

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.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    Your inability to figure out a competent business model that also respects the rights of users is not the user's problem. You have no right to lock someone's computer down, to prevent them from using the copy of the software that you sold them, and the only way to guarantee that is to require the source to be open. Look, it probably won't matter anyway. Probably nobody is going to use your software.
syshum 10y ago
To translate if you are attempting to exploit other peoples code with out giving anything back to the people that created the code then GPL is a cancer >MIT or the MS-PL is much more practical. This depends on the project I normally license my libraries, code I intend to be included in other software under BSD or MIT, but full developed software that is intended to be used as is gets GPL.
- douche 10y ago
  Thanks for putting words in my mouth. How many people would have used jQuery, if it was GPL? Full-on GPL taints your software, such that you have to be extremely careful not to use any libraries that are GPL'd if you want to release it under any other sort of license. Sure, you can get exemptions, but can you imagine the clusterfuck if, say, the NPM community defaulted to using GPL? Trying to trace back and make arrangements with the owners of thousands of tiny libraries would be insane.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    If you're a lone developer or small team and you're releasing your code under anything other than a strong copyleft license, you're leaving yourself open to the Joyents of the world to abscond with what you've made and build their business with nothing more than an attaboy to you. I would much rather nobody made money off of my code than somebody else while I still struggle. At least the Mozillas and Googles of the world have the decent politeness to just completely ignore your open source project, no matter how long its been out and how new they are to that particular field, to boulder through and make their own thing.
    - biot 10y ago
      Perhaps you could form a community of like-minded developers. Everyone pools their resources together, contributing to the pool according to his ability, and each person shares those resources according to his need. That way, nobody will be able to make money while you struggle and go without.
    - 10y ago
belorn 10y ago
"If you are a software repository, proprietary license is toxic waste." "If you write software, proprietary content is a time bomb waiting to kill everyone involved." Does this kind of language really help anyone? Do you want to be called a toxic waste distributor? Do you like to plant bombs in peoples projects, killing them?

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.

by 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.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  Your inability to figure out a competent business model that also respects the rights of users is not the user's problem. You have no right to lock someone's computer down, to prevent them from using the copy of the software that you sold them, and the only way to guarantee that is to require the source to be open. Look, it probably won't matter anyway. Probably nobody is going to use your software.

syshum 10y ago

To translate if you are attempting to exploit other peoples code with out giving anything back to the people that created the code then GPL is a cancer >MIT or the MS-PL is much more practical. This depends on the project I normally license my libraries, code I intend to be included in other software under BSD or MIT, but full developed software that is intended to be used as is gets GPL.

douche 10y ago
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. How many people would have used jQuery, if it was GPL? Full-on GPL taints your software, such that you have to be extremely careful not to use any libraries that are GPL'd if you want to release it under any other sort of license. Sure, you can get exemptions, but can you imagine the clusterfuck if, say, the NPM community defaulted to using GPL? Trying to trace back and make arrangements with the owners of thousands of tiny libraries would be insane.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  If you're a lone developer or small team and you're releasing your code under anything other than a strong copyleft license, you're leaving yourself open to the Joyents of the world to abscond with what you've made and build their business with nothing more than an attaboy to you. I would much rather nobody made money off of my code than somebody else while I still struggle. At least the Mozillas and Googles of the world have the decent politeness to just completely ignore your open source project, no matter how long its been out and how new they are to that particular field, to boulder through and make their own thing.
  - biot 10y ago
    Perhaps you could form a community of like-minded developers. Everyone pools their resources together, contributing to the pool according to his ability, and each person shares those resources according to his need. That way, nobody will be able to make money while you struggle and go without.
  - 10y ago

belorn 10y ago

"If you are a software repository, proprietary license is toxic waste." "If you write software, proprietary content is a time bomb waiting to kill everyone involved." Does this kind of language really help anyone? Do you want to be called a toxic waste distributor? Do you like to plant bombs in peoples projects, killing them?