5 ms·

Indeed, as an independent consultant I'm far more inclined to use LGPL/AGPL/GPL licences for work that I think I could sell commercially precisely because I see

Indeed, as an independent consultant I'm far more inclined to use LGPL/AGPL/GPL licences for work that I think I could sell commercially precisely because I see those licenses and private property/capitalism as very compatible. Quite simply, I'm happy if you either pay me money or code for the right to use my code; the users who contribute neither are more often than not still benefiting me via a wider userbase - aka advertising to the minority who will give something back. Meanwhile I often joke that the highly permissive BSD/MIT/etc. licenses are for commies.

smsm42 10y ago
I've seen a lot of companies using GPL/AGPL for exactly the same purpose - to prevent other commercial companies from reusing their code. It is especially common in areas where added-value customizations are valuable - i.e., if you have GPL (or, usually, dual-licensed commercial/GPL) core for, say, document handling system, you can market it as open-source, take contributions, and build add-on business on it, but if a competitor comes out and wants to use your core, they now have to publish source for all their add-ons, so you can have them for free. That puts you at the advantageous position. It's not the unique practice, I've seen many companies doing this. Not sure that's what FSF meant to happen, but that's what is happening.
- spangry 10y ago
  I would have thought the FSF/Stallman would be perfectly fine with this. Their main objective is to maximise the freedom of users by advocating for software that can be inspected, modified, shared etc. As far as I know, they are not opposed to someone making a private income off this kind of software. However, it's probably true to say that a number of possible methods of extracting an income would be closed off to you under these conditions. They're closed off not because the copyright(left) is anti private income, but because they're probably user oppressive practices (ones that would be very quickly ripped out of the codebase e.g. sending user private information back to home-base for subsequent sale to advertisers etc.) That's my layman's understanding of the situation anyhow (happy to be corrected if wrong).
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Thing is, a very common model along these lines is to dual-license under copyleft for free, and proprietary commercial license for those who don't like copyleft "virality" (e.g. the way Qt used to do it until switching to LGPL). This works great; but the proprietary part is completely antithetical to the whole "free software" concept.
    - spangry 10y ago
      I've been thinking about the dual-licensing approach. Strategically, one could argue that it still aligns with FSF goals. My logic is roughly: (objective) We want people to use software that doesn't oppress them -> People naturally want to use the 'best' software -> Copyleft licences ensure the 'best' software is non-oppressive (via open source, freedom to modify etc.) as derivative improvements can be merged back into the mainline. The key part is that the 'non-oppressive' software is 'the best' (or at least of decent quality) so that people will naturally use it and society as a whole will remain un-oppressed. Mightn't one extend this logic and say: Although we don't get the benefit of useful modifications being mainlined for closed-source, secondarily licensed derivatives, more money for the project means more resources/devs -> ultimately means improved mainline software? I mean, I'm unsure if I agree with that argument, but it seems at least plausible.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        I think it's a perfectly plausible argument. The problem is that it is a pragmatic argument. It is possible to be pragmatic in pursuit of one's ideals - indeed, I would argue that this approach is the one that usually works best (or at all) - but FSF, and Stallman personally, seem to frown upon short-term pragmatic deviations from ideological purity.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  > but if a competitor comes out and wants to use your core, they now have to publish source for all their add-ons, so you can have them for free. 1. Strictly speaking, they don't have to publish anything, they have to provide the source code under the GPL to their customers/users. 2. They probably will make those addons GPL-only, so, if you want to incorprate them into your product, you have to make all your addons GPL as well.
- webmaven 10y ago
  > if you have GPL (or, usually, dual-licensed commercial/GPL) core for, say, document handling system, you can market it as open-source, take contributions, and build add-on business on it, but if a competitor comes out and wants to use your core, they now have to publish source for all their add-ons, so you can have them for free. This is a bit tricky to pull off unless you get a copyright assignment or a license permitting relicensing from all contributors, or your GPL licensed core has a large exception carved out of it (say, for proprietary plugins).
  - smsm42 10y ago
    You can use the code without regard to GPL, since you own the copyright. Of course, contributions usually require copyright assignment in this model, via CLA of some kind.
    - webmaven 10y ago
      Um, what part of unless you get a copyright assignment or a license permitting relicensing from all contributors wasn't clear?
Fnoord 10y ago
> Meanwhile I often joke that the highly permissive BSD/MIT/etc. licenses are for commies. On the contrary. Let us use Politicalcompass [1] as spectrum. Gist of it: x = left v. right economics, y = libertarian vs authoritarian. Now, communism (not Trotsky; the communism as we have seen in countries in the 20th century) is left on x, but high on y because its highly authoritarian. BSD/MIT/etc. licenses are more permissive than GPL, and its obvious GPL is more authoritarian in this way. But because the GPL enforces the code to (mostly) stay the way it is, it is more left-wing than BSD/MIT/etc. [1] https://politicalcompass.org https://politicalcompass.org
pmoriarty 10y ago
"the users who contribute neither are more often than not still benefiting me via a wider userbase - aka advertising to the minority who will give something back." A lot of users also provide free support, bug reports, and beta testing.

smsm42 10y ago

I've seen a lot of companies using GPL/AGPL for exactly the same purpose - to prevent other commercial companies from reusing their code. It is especially common in areas where added-value customizations are valuable - i.e., if you have GPL (or, usually, dual-licensed commercial/GPL) core for, say, document handling system, you can market it as open-source, take contributions, and build add-on business on it, but if a competitor comes out and wants to use your core, they now have to publish source for all their add-ons, so you can have them for free. That puts you at the advantageous position. It's not the unique practice, I've seen many companies doing this. Not sure that's what FSF meant to happen, but that's what is happening.

spangry 10y ago
I would have thought the FSF/Stallman would be perfectly fine with this. Their main objective is to maximise the freedom of users by advocating for software that can be inspected, modified, shared etc. As far as I know, they are not opposed to someone making a private income off this kind of software. However, it's probably true to say that a number of possible methods of extracting an income would be closed off to you under these conditions. They're closed off not because the copyright(left) is anti private income, but because they're probably user oppressive practices (ones that would be very quickly ripped out of the codebase e.g. sending user private information back to home-base for subsequent sale to advertisers etc.) That's my layman's understanding of the situation anyhow (happy to be corrected if wrong).
- int_19h 10y ago
  Thing is, a very common model along these lines is to dual-license under copyleft for free, and proprietary commercial license for those who don't like copyleft "virality" (e.g. the way Qt used to do it until switching to LGPL). This works great; but the proprietary part is completely antithetical to the whole "free software" concept.
  - spangry 10y ago
    I've been thinking about the dual-licensing approach. Strategically, one could argue that it still aligns with FSF goals. My logic is roughly: (objective) We want people to use software that doesn't oppress them -> People naturally want to use the 'best' software -> Copyleft licences ensure the 'best' software is non-oppressive (via open source, freedom to modify etc.) as derivative improvements can be merged back into the mainline. The key part is that the 'non-oppressive' software is 'the best' (or at least of decent quality) so that people will naturally use it and society as a whole will remain un-oppressed. Mightn't one extend this logic and say: Although we don't get the benefit of useful modifications being mainlined for closed-source, secondarily licensed derivatives, more money for the project means more resources/devs -> ultimately means improved mainline software? I mean, I'm unsure if I agree with that argument, but it seems at least plausible.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      I think it's a perfectly plausible argument. The problem is that it is a pragmatic argument. It is possible to be pragmatic in pursuit of one's ideals - indeed, I would argue that this approach is the one that usually works best (or at all) - but FSF, and Stallman personally, seem to frown upon short-term pragmatic deviations from ideological purity.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> but if a competitor comes out and wants to use your core, they now have to publish source for all their add-ons, so you can have them for free. 1. Strictly speaking, they don't have to publish anything, they have to provide the source code under the GPL to their customers/users. 2. They probably will make those addons GPL-only, so, if you want to incorprate them into your product, you have to make all your addons GPL as well.
webmaven 10y ago
> if you have GPL (or, usually, dual-licensed commercial/GPL) core for, say, document handling system, you can market it as open-source, take contributions, and build add-on business on it, but if a competitor comes out and wants to use your core, they now have to publish source for all their add-ons, so you can have them for free. This is a bit tricky to pull off unless you get a copyright assignment or a license permitting relicensing from all contributors, or your GPL licensed core has a large exception carved out of it (say, for proprietary plugins).
- smsm42 10y ago
  You can use the code without regard to GPL, since you own the copyright. Of course, contributions usually require copyright assignment in this model, via CLA of some kind.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    Um, what part of unless you get a copyright assignment or a license permitting relicensing from all contributors wasn't clear?

Fnoord 10y ago

> Meanwhile I often joke that the highly permissive BSD/MIT/etc. licenses are for commies. On the contrary. Let us use Politicalcompass [1] as spectrum. Gist of it: x = left v. right economics, y = libertarian vs authoritarian. Now, communism (not Trotsky; the communism as we have seen in countries in the 20th century) is left on x, but high on y because its highly authoritarian. BSD/MIT/etc. licenses are more permissive than GPL, and its obvious GPL is more authoritarian in this way. But because the GPL enforces the code to (mostly) stay the way it is, it is more left-wing than BSD/MIT/etc. [1] https://politicalcompass.org https://politicalcompass.org

pmoriarty 10y ago

"the users who contribute neither are more often than not still benefiting me via a wider userbase - aka advertising to the minority who will give something back." A lot of users also provide free support, bug reports, and beta testing.