3 ms·

Yeah, this should not be a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention for the last 10 years. GPLv3 was incredibly divisive, both inside and outside the open

by mwfunk 10y ago

Yeah, this should not be a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention for the last 10 years. GPLv3 was incredibly divisive, both inside and outside the open source community. Admittedly, for some people this may have been part of its intent- to draw more lines in the sand, to force out those that the FSF deems as having insufficient ideological purity. The FSF doesn't shy away from calling out its enemies- to my eyes, over the decades it has been far more concerned with condemning what it perceives as being evil, rather than promotion of what it perceives as being good.

abritinthebay 10y ago
Oh yeah, it was totally it's goal and I don't begrudge them that. The problem is that by v3 the GPL was so ingrained as THE OSS license that many projects and devs just used v3 out of habit. Now for some they may be fine with it, and that's cool, but I think it's telling that we've seen a resurgence of MIT, Apache, Mozilla, LGPL, and BSD licenses. GPLv3 has been extremely damaging to OSS, intentionally or not, as companies associate OSS with it - which is a shame.
- sedachv 10y ago
  > The problem is that by v3 the GPL was so ingrained as THE OSS license that many projects and devs just used v3 out of habit. As Stallman would point out, GPL is Free Software, not OSS. > GPLv3 has been extremely damaging to OSS, intentionally or not, as companies associate OSS with it - which is a shame. If companies really want to continue shipping crapware locked-down IoT and ARM systems they can pay for the development of the software themselves. Since it is effectively impossible to run your own Linux distribution on the vast majority of Android devices, contributing ARM-related Linux code as a hobbyist is literally working for Google/phone manufacturers for free. Stallman did not start GNU so you could sit on your Macbook writing ad-tech apps to deploy to AWS and the Google Play Store.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    > As Stallman would point out, GPL is Free Software, not OSS. Yes I know that, you know that, but it had positioned itself (deliberately) as the first choice & was very effective at it. Or put another way: a PC doesn't have to include Windows but there's a reason the campaign was Mac vs PC not Mac vs Windows. Also you seem to think I care what Stallman thinks or wants. I really don't.

by mwfunk 10y ago

abritinthebay 10y ago

Oh yeah, it was totally it's goal and I don't begrudge them that. The problem is that by v3 the GPL was so ingrained as THE OSS license that many projects and devs just used v3 out of habit. Now for some they may be fine with it, and that's cool, but I think it's telling that we've seen a resurgence of MIT, Apache, Mozilla, LGPL, and BSD licenses. GPLv3 has been extremely damaging to OSS, intentionally or not, as companies associate OSS with it - which is a shame.

sedachv 10y ago
> The problem is that by v3 the GPL was so ingrained as THE OSS license that many projects and devs just used v3 out of habit. As Stallman would point out, GPL is Free Software, not OSS. > GPLv3 has been extremely damaging to OSS, intentionally or not, as companies associate OSS with it - which is a shame. If companies really want to continue shipping crapware locked-down IoT and ARM systems they can pay for the development of the software themselves. Since it is effectively impossible to run your own Linux distribution on the vast majority of Android devices, contributing ARM-related Linux code as a hobbyist is literally working for Google/phone manufacturers for free. Stallman did not start GNU so you could sit on your Macbook writing ad-tech apps to deploy to AWS and the Google Play Store.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  > As Stallman would point out, GPL is Free Software, not OSS. Yes I know that, you know that, but it had positioned itself (deliberately) as the first choice & was very effective at it. Or put another way: a PC doesn't have to include Windows but there's a reason the campaign was Mac vs PC not Mac vs Windows. Also you seem to think I care what Stallman thinks or wants. I really don't.