5 ms·

"People who are reflexively anti-GPL tend not to know much about the security software industry, where intense VC funding and rafts of "me-too" products have pl

by rick888 17y ago

"People who are reflexively anti-GPL tend not to know much about the security software industry, where intense VC funding and rafts of "me-too" products have plagued the major open source projects (Snort, Nessus, etc). If your code is ever going to really be worth something, and you MIT/BSD it, expect someone else to make a lot more money off it than you do." ..and here I thought the GNU was about freedom and helping your fellow man. Instead, it's about preventing someone from "making a lot more money off of it than you do".

tptacek 17y ago
To be clear: The FSF has their own reasons for liking the AGPL. They're entirely irrelevant to me. You won't win any arguments with me by holding me to what Stallman says, sorry.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  I think Flint is the perfect product to be AGPL licensed; the argument of "it could be a commercial product but we don't want it to be" holds a lot of weight.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    To be fair: if you simply don't care about money, and just want to contribute to open source, there's an argument to be made that the AGPL is antisocial, since it prevents most other downstream projects from incorporating your work. I think reasonable people can disagree about this. But if you care even a little bit about how your code fits into the marketplace, the AGPL is a fine choice, striking a balance between proprietary or restrictive licenses and "yes, please rape me" licenses like MIT. That's not a knock against the BSD/MIT licenses. The 37s guys, who obviously care quite a bit about money, MIT-licensed Rails. They wanted maximal uptake. You have to consider your goals. We wanted to do some software development out in the open and work more closely with our users, but we didn't to fund competitors.
    - papachito 17y ago
      But 37s never opened any of their end products (basecamp, campfire etc), they open sourced the framework and for a framework BSD or LGPL makes more sense because nobody makes money directly from a framework or a library, they make money from the software built on top of it, this is why they are more likely to contribute their changes back. If you open source an end user product on the other hand, people are less likely to contribute back so AGPL is needed.
joe_the_user 17y ago
Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?
- anamax 17y ago
  Is "Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?" a response to "..and here I thought the GNU was about freedom and helping your fellow man. Instead, it's about preventing someone from "making a lot more money off of it than you do"."? I ask because most folks measure commercial success by how much money they make. Very few measure it by how much (or little) other people make.
- rick888 17y ago
  "Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?" I find it ironic that people would associate the GNU with freedom, when it's anything but. The AGPL and GPL is about giving out your source code and telling people exactly how you can (and most importantly cannot) use it. How is this any different than a proprietary license? I'm fine with people being against commercialization of their work, but I just wish they would stop trying to pass it off as freedom. This is why I only support the BSD license. Yes, people may make "more money than me" on my own work, but if that's the case, they obviously have better ideas than I do..and deserve the success. It seems like the FSF and Stallman want companies to get confused and use GNU software in their proprietary application. By calling it "free", some people do get confused and use it..and it usually ends up on lawsuits that require the company to open up the source of their app and/or the hiring of a "GNU compliance officer".
  - Maro 17y ago
    You're implying "commercialization" means "closed source". GPL'd as well as AGPL'd software can be sold. Others can download it, modify it, sell it as well, and make a lot of money off it. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you make the source available under the same license it was made available for you.
    - rick888 17y ago
tspiteri 17y ago
The way I see it, GNU is about free/open software, and the GPL makes it possible for commercial companies to open their code without fear that someone makes a lot more money off their own work then themselves. Not having the GPL as an option will not lead to companies using a more liberal open license, but to the companies having to keep their code closed.
davidw 17y ago
> ..and here I thought the GNU was about freedom and helping your fellow man. Instead, it's about preventing someone from "making a lot more money off of it than you do". I think you have to consider the sort of equilibriums that are created. If, over time, people observe that the set of people who create software are not the same set of people who are making money on it - maybe not even making a living wage off their work - then people will cease to participate. This is one reason why the GPL is popular: it encourages people to participate because they won't feel "screwed".
- rick888 17y ago
  "I think you have to consider the sort of equilibriums that are created. If, over time, people observe that the set of people who create software are not the same set of people who are making money on it - maybe not even making a living wage off their work - then people will cease to participate. This is one reason why the GPL is popular: it encourages people to participate because they won't feel "screwed"." I don't know why these people would feel 'screwed'. Most developers don't understand or enjoy marketing. If someone comes along, re-packages your source code, and makes money on it, they are doing a good job at marketing and selling. This takes lots of time and effort. If they want to make money on their code, they should sell it (or make it into an app). As I've stated in my above comments, this doesn't sound like freedom to me. I'm allowed to use a person's source code, but only if I follow a strict set of rules (and they are going to feel screwed if I can do what they can't). The GNU is against most forms of commercialism. The FSF and the people supporting it just won't admit it. The BSD license supports true freedom.

by rick888 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago

To be clear: The FSF has their own reasons for liking the AGPL. They're entirely irrelevant to me. You won't win any arguments with me by holding me to what Stallman says, sorry.

ErrantX 17y ago
I think Flint is the perfect product to be AGPL licensed; the argument of "it could be a commercial product but we don't want it to be" holds a lot of weight.
- tptacek 17y ago
  To be fair: if you simply don't care about money, and just want to contribute to open source, there's an argument to be made that the AGPL is antisocial, since it prevents most other downstream projects from incorporating your work. I think reasonable people can disagree about this. But if you care even a little bit about how your code fits into the marketplace, the AGPL is a fine choice, striking a balance between proprietary or restrictive licenses and "yes, please rape me" licenses like MIT. That's not a knock against the BSD/MIT licenses. The 37s guys, who obviously care quite a bit about money, MIT-licensed Rails. They wanted maximal uptake. You have to consider your goals. We wanted to do some software development out in the open and work more closely with our users, but we didn't to fund competitors.
  - papachito 17y ago
    But 37s never opened any of their end products (basecamp, campfire etc), they open sourced the framework and for a framework BSD or LGPL makes more sense because nobody makes money directly from a framework or a library, they make money from the software built on top of it, this is why they are more likely to contribute their changes back. If you open source an end user product on the other hand, people are less likely to contribute back so AGPL is needed.

joe_the_user 17y ago

Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?

anamax 17y ago
Is "Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?" a response to "..and here I thought the GNU was about freedom and helping your fellow man. Instead, it's about preventing someone from "making a lot more money off of it than you do"."? I ask because most folks measure commercial success by how much money they make. Very few measure it by how much (or little) other people make.
rick888 17y ago
"Ironic how commercially useful a tool for freedom can be, huh?" I find it ironic that people would associate the GNU with freedom, when it's anything but. The AGPL and GPL is about giving out your source code and telling people exactly how you can (and most importantly cannot) use it. How is this any different than a proprietary license? I'm fine with people being against commercialization of their work, but I just wish they would stop trying to pass it off as freedom. This is why I only support the BSD license. Yes, people may make "more money than me" on my own work, but if that's the case, they obviously have better ideas than I do..and deserve the success. It seems like the FSF and Stallman want companies to get confused and use GNU software in their proprietary application. By calling it "free", some people do get confused and use it..and it usually ends up on lawsuits that require the company to open up the source of their app and/or the hiring of a "GNU compliance officer".
- Maro 17y ago
  You're implying "commercialization" means "closed source". GPL'd as well as AGPL'd software can be sold. Others can download it, modify it, sell it as well, and make a lot of money off it. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you make the source available under the same license it was made available for you.
  - rick888 17y ago

tspiteri 17y ago

The way I see it, GNU is about free/open software, and the GPL makes it possible for commercial companies to open their code without fear that someone makes a lot more money off their own work then themselves. Not having the GPL as an option will not lead to companies using a more liberal open license, but to the companies having to keep their code closed.

davidw 17y ago

> ..and here I thought the GNU was about freedom and helping your fellow man. Instead, it's about preventing someone from "making a lot more money off of it than you do". I think you have to consider the sort of equilibriums that are created. If, over time, people observe that the set of people who create software are not the same set of people who are making money on it - maybe not even making a living wage off their work - then people will cease to participate. This is one reason why the GPL is popular: it encourages people to participate because they won't feel "screwed".

rick888 17y ago
"I think you have to consider the sort of equilibriums that are created. If, over time, people observe that the set of people who create software are not the same set of people who are making money on it - maybe not even making a living wage off their work - then people will cease to participate. This is one reason why the GPL is popular: it encourages people to participate because they won't feel "screwed"." I don't know why these people would feel 'screwed'. Most developers don't understand or enjoy marketing. If someone comes along, re-packages your source code, and makes money on it, they are doing a good job at marketing and selling. This takes lots of time and effort. If they want to make money on their code, they should sell it (or make it into an app). As I've stated in my above comments, this doesn't sound like freedom to me. I'm allowed to use a person's source code, but only if I follow a strict set of rules (and they are going to feel screwed if I can do what they can't). The GNU is against most forms of commercialism. The FSF and the people supporting it just won't admit it. The BSD license supports true freedom.