6 ms·

I think GPL has served its purpose, leaving a healthy ecosystem of open source software along with professional acceptance of the model. Now, paradoxically, GP

by payne92 10y ago

I think GPL has served its purpose, leaving a healthy ecosystem of open source software along with professional acceptance of the model. Now, paradoxically, GPL is less free than many open source licenses. The GPL restrictions will limit adoptions, as we're seeing here. Stated differently, GPL was an important starting "assist" that's now slowing us down. It's time to turn it off.

candiodari 10y ago
GPL is not about maximizing adoption, it's about maximizing freedom of your work and anything based upon it. It's about not having your work just stolen, embraced and extended, monopolized, and disappeared.
- X86BSD 10y ago
  Except that other licenses already do that. The BSD license allows anyone to do what they wish with that BSD licensed code. Nothing happens to the original BSD licensed code just because someone uses it in a closed product. It's still available under the same bsd license.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    No it does not. For instance, if I write router code, and a vendor uses it in a product, it does not allow me to fix a bug in a product I paid for. It does not allow me to see and learn from how they did it. And given telco behavior it effectively locks me out of using my own code.
    - grzm 10y ago
      "it does not allow me to fix a bug in a product I paid for" Would you go into more detail here? It seems to me, to use the router as an example, even if they were to make the source code available, getting updated code to run on the router would still be difficult, if not impossible, depending on how the software is running on the hardware. Is it burned into ROM? Are you able to flash firmware? I'm admittedly speaking from ignorance here. How are these types of issues addressed purely from the point of view of the GPL (or any other license, for that matter)?
      - matthewmacleod 10y ago
        One of the main differences in GPLv3 versus older versions are clauses intended to make sure that this doesn't happen – this is the so-called 'Tivoisation' issue, where manufacturers are nominally compliant with the GPL (sharing changes to the code) but don't actually allow that code to be used on devices. To quote the license: “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). It's this sort of thing that's really important for 'Free' software.
        grzm 10y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. Am I correct in understanding then, that with respect to the OP ("Apple's Great GPL Purge"), this wouldn't apply as the code in question isn't GPL3? And it looks like in at least the ROM case I described, the end user is not going to be able to fix it?
        matthewmacleod 10y ago
        That's generally correct, yes. The GPL3 anti-Tivoization clauses were added specifically to deal with this sort of thing, but one of the side-effects appear to have been a reluctance on the part of hardware manufacturers to continue shipping GPL software. Certainly in the case of ROM you are correct – but it's a bit of an unusual case really. The only other option would be outright banning the inclusion of GPL software on such devices, but that seems overboard.
    - insulanus 10y ago
      It's useful to think of the copies of BSD-licensed software as OO-style object instances. Once the router company clones the source, it becomes this new code-base, that they can add to, without revealing those new changes. You are still allowed to make any changes you want to the original code-base, but: 1. That is not the code-base you want. You want the one running on your router. 2. You don't have all the build environment, and toolchain magic needed to produce a new binary blob for your router. Also, blah blah DMCA.
- danudey 10y ago
  The GPL, fundamentally, is about control and restrictions. It's about specifying things you cannot do with the code, ensuring that the original author's political and social goals are retained no matter what. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but where some people see freedom other people see restriction. If you release your code under the BSD license, no one can 'steal' it. That's a misrepresentation of reality. They're using it according to the license. If I release code under the BSD license and someone takes it, uses it in some closed-source router whose code or behaviour I can't fix or modify, then so be it. Likewise, your code is never 'monopolized' or 'disappeared'. Anyone else who wants to do something with that code is still able. Nothing is taken away from the rest of the world by one person using that code for their own purposes, whether you disagree with those purposes or not.
  - belorn 10y ago
    The GPL, fundamentally, is about giving permission where copyright law would otherwise make illegal. It's about specifying things you can do with the code, ensuring that the original author can not sue over copyright when the copyrighted work is used within the scope of the license. Some people see freedom in this, while other people see restriction because they want more than what the license gives. If you release your code under the GPL license, no one is 'restricting' usage of the code. That's a misrepresentation of reality. The area outside the license, which include adding legal restrictions, are as if there were no license and is enforced solely by copyright. Anyone else who wants to do something with that code is still able. Nothing is taken away from the rest of the world by limiting what legal restrictions may be added to the software license, whether you want to add such restrictions or not.
- greyman 10y ago
  > GPL is not about maximizing adoption, it's about maximizing freedom of your work and anything based upon it. Yes, but you should add that you are talking about the RMS definition of freedom, not about the word freedom as it is generally understood.
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    Stallman's use of "free" and "freedom" are best thought of as referring to the software, not the user. I feel like a lot of commenters below are missing this distinction. The GPL puts (somewhat onerous, some would argue) limitations on the user in order for the software to remain free. Think of it as liberating the software by giving it rights.
  - guelo 10y ago
    GPL preserves the hacker's freedom to modify the code in the hardware they own. It doesn't preserve a corporation's freedom to take the code, package it up and sell it in some other hardware. Which licenses are more free? Depends who you are and what you're trying to do.
  - discodave 10y ago
    Why is the RMS definition of freedom different from freedom as it is generally understood. Some dictionary definitions of freedom are: > the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. > absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government. > the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved. So the changes in GPL v3 are about maximising the freedom of your software and it's users, at the expense of curtailing the freedom of Apple/TIVO & friends to distribute it.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      DRM helps maximize the freedom of rightsholders. Would you call DRM technologies 'pro-freedom'?
  - kzrdude 10y ago
    The assertion that there is one general and correct notion of freedom is dubious when we hear freedom being shouted misguidedly all the time (politics stuff).
0x0 10y ago
Not sure how the fact that a piece of software exists with a particular license can slow anyone down. Would you rather the software didn't exist?
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
  An example is the Ubuntu ZFS controversy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11133676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11133676 The BSD's have been using ZFS without any issues for a while. However, GPL may cause issues which makes people leery of using ZFS with Linux
X86BSD 10y ago
It's not "now" it's always been less free.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- oliwarner 10y ago
  ... For developers. It's always been more free for users. That's the point of it.
pjmlp 10y ago
How are you enjoying those PS4 BSD fixes backported by Sony to BSD? What about the contributions of embedded compiler vendors back to LLVM?
- Sanddancer 10y ago
  Pretty well. Sony's porting of AVX, for example is pretty nice, there's a good performance boost in hand there. ARM's also made some substantial improvements to LLVM, in fact dumping their old proprietary compiler for one built around LLVM. Neither of these things would have likely happened if the two projects in question had been GPL-encumbered.
  - nekitamo 10y ago
    While we're on the topic, it should also be noted that Sony has made extensive contributions to Clang/LLVM.
- pYQAJ6Zm 10y ago
  Re: compilers; as I understand it, using a GPL compiler doesn’t extend its license unto the produced binaries. Those vendors could be using GCC instead, and still contribute to its development without danger of jeopardizing their intellectual property.
oliwarner 10y ago
I think you're missing the point of GPL, especially in regard to other licenses that you're saying are more free. The freedom GPL preserves is that of the user. If you ship me GPL-based binaries, it's my right as a user to see what's actually running. I also get to redistribute that under the same license as was afforded to you, but principally, I always get to see what's running. Somebody can take MIT code, alter it, compile it down and ship that. That's great if you're a developer. Super easy. But as a user, why do you expect me to trust this stuff? Especially when there's a GPL version out there that does let me audit it.

by payne92 10y ago

candiodari 10y ago

GPL is not about maximizing adoption, it's about maximizing freedom of your work and anything based upon it. It's about not having your work just stolen, embraced and extended, monopolized, and disappeared.

X86BSD 10y ago
Except that other licenses already do that. The BSD license allows anyone to do what they wish with that BSD licensed code. Nothing happens to the original BSD licensed code just because someone uses it in a closed product. It's still available under the same bsd license.
- candiodari 10y ago
  No it does not. For instance, if I write router code, and a vendor uses it in a product, it does not allow me to fix a bug in a product I paid for. It does not allow me to see and learn from how they did it. And given telco behavior it effectively locks me out of using my own code.
  - grzm 10y ago
    "it does not allow me to fix a bug in a product I paid for" Would you go into more detail here? It seems to me, to use the router as an example, even if they were to make the source code available, getting updated code to run on the router would still be difficult, if not impossible, depending on how the software is running on the hardware. Is it burned into ROM? Are you able to flash firmware? I'm admittedly speaking from ignorance here. How are these types of issues addressed purely from the point of view of the GPL (or any other license, for that matter)?
    - matthewmacleod 10y ago
      One of the main differences in GPLv3 versus older versions are clauses intended to make sure that this doesn't happen – this is the so-called 'Tivoisation' issue, where manufacturers are nominally compliant with the GPL (sharing changes to the code) but don't actually allow that code to be used on devices. To quote the license: “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). It's this sort of thing that's really important for 'Free' software.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. Am I correct in understanding then, that with respect to the OP ("Apple's Great GPL Purge"), this wouldn't apply as the code in question isn't GPL3? And it looks like in at least the ROM case I described, the end user is not going to be able to fix it?
        matthewmacleod 10y ago
        That's generally correct, yes. The GPL3 anti-Tivoization clauses were added specifically to deal with this sort of thing, but one of the side-effects appear to have been a reluctance on the part of hardware manufacturers to continue shipping GPL software. Certainly in the case of ROM you are correct – but it's a bit of an unusual case really. The only other option would be outright banning the inclusion of GPL software on such devices, but that seems overboard.
  - insulanus 10y ago
    It's useful to think of the copies of BSD-licensed software as OO-style object instances. Once the router company clones the source, it becomes this new code-base, that they can add to, without revealing those new changes. You are still allowed to make any changes you want to the original code-base, but: 1. That is not the code-base you want. You want the one running on your router. 2. You don't have all the build environment, and toolchain magic needed to produce a new binary blob for your router. Also, blah blah DMCA.
danudey 10y ago
The GPL, fundamentally, is about control and restrictions. It's about specifying things you cannot do with the code, ensuring that the original author's political and social goals are retained no matter what. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but where some people see freedom other people see restriction. If you release your code under the BSD license, no one can 'steal' it. That's a misrepresentation of reality. They're using it according to the license. If I release code under the BSD license and someone takes it, uses it in some closed-source router whose code or behaviour I can't fix or modify, then so be it. Likewise, your code is never 'monopolized' or 'disappeared'. Anyone else who wants to do something with that code is still able. Nothing is taken away from the rest of the world by one person using that code for their own purposes, whether you disagree with those purposes or not.
- belorn 10y ago
  The GPL, fundamentally, is about giving permission where copyright law would otherwise make illegal. It's about specifying things you can do with the code, ensuring that the original author can not sue over copyright when the copyrighted work is used within the scope of the license. Some people see freedom in this, while other people see restriction because they want more than what the license gives. If you release your code under the GPL license, no one is 'restricting' usage of the code. That's a misrepresentation of reality. The area outside the license, which include adding legal restrictions, are as if there were no license and is enforced solely by copyright. Anyone else who wants to do something with that code is still able. Nothing is taken away from the rest of the world by limiting what legal restrictions may be added to the software license, whether you want to add such restrictions or not.
greyman 10y ago
> GPL is not about maximizing adoption, it's about maximizing freedom of your work and anything based upon it. Yes, but you should add that you are talking about the RMS definition of freedom, not about the word freedom as it is generally understood.
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  Stallman's use of "free" and "freedom" are best thought of as referring to the software, not the user. I feel like a lot of commenters below are missing this distinction. The GPL puts (somewhat onerous, some would argue) limitations on the user in order for the software to remain free. Think of it as liberating the software by giving it rights.
- guelo 10y ago
  GPL preserves the hacker's freedom to modify the code in the hardware they own. It doesn't preserve a corporation's freedom to take the code, package it up and sell it in some other hardware. Which licenses are more free? Depends who you are and what you're trying to do.
- discodave 10y ago
  Why is the RMS definition of freedom different from freedom as it is generally understood. Some dictionary definitions of freedom are: > the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. > absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government. > the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved. So the changes in GPL v3 are about maximising the freedom of your software and it's users, at the expense of curtailing the freedom of Apple/TIVO & friends to distribute it.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    DRM helps maximize the freedom of rightsholders. Would you call DRM technologies 'pro-freedom'?
- kzrdude 10y ago
  The assertion that there is one general and correct notion of freedom is dubious when we hear freedom being shouted misguidedly all the time (politics stuff).

0x0 10y ago

Not sure how the fact that a piece of software exists with a particular license can slow anyone down. Would you rather the software didn't exist?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
An example is the Ubuntu ZFS controversy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11133676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11133676 The BSD's have been using ZFS without any issues for a while. However, GPL may cause issues which makes people leery of using ZFS with Linux

X86BSD 10y ago

It's not "now" it's always been less free.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oliwarner 10y ago
... For developers. It's always been more free for users. That's the point of it.

pjmlp 10y ago

How are you enjoying those PS4 BSD fixes backported by Sony to BSD? What about the contributions of embedded compiler vendors back to LLVM?

Sanddancer 10y ago
Pretty well. Sony's porting of AVX, for example is pretty nice, there's a good performance boost in hand there. ARM's also made some substantial improvements to LLVM, in fact dumping their old proprietary compiler for one built around LLVM. Neither of these things would have likely happened if the two projects in question had been GPL-encumbered.
- nekitamo 10y ago
  While we're on the topic, it should also be noted that Sony has made extensive contributions to Clang/LLVM.
pYQAJ6Zm 10y ago
Re: compilers; as I understand it, using a GPL compiler doesn’t extend its license unto the produced binaries. Those vendors could be using GCC instead, and still contribute to its development without danger of jeopardizing their intellectual property.

oliwarner 10y ago

I think you're missing the point of GPL, especially in regard to other licenses that you're saying are more free. The freedom GPL preserves is that of the user. If you ship me GPL-based binaries, it's my right as a user to see what's actually running. I also get to redistribute that under the same license as was afforded to you, but principally, I always get to see what's running. Somebody can take MIT code, alter it, compile it down and ship that. That's great if you're a developer. Super easy. But as a user, why do you expect me to trust this stuff? Especially when there's a GPL version out there that does let me audit it.