4 ms·

There's nothing theoretical about the billions that have already been spent (wasted) replacing GPL projects with code with a more permissive license - namely on

There's nothing theoretical about the billions that have already been spent (wasted) replacing GPL projects with code with a more permissive license - namely one that actually permits companies to keep their patents, among other things. Think about Chromium (which is not derived from webkit, that had to be replaced by Blink) and Android (replacing the GNU libraries and making them redundant. Total waste, caused by a license that over-reaches. Not everyone wants to abandon the idea of having patents.

eridius 10y ago
> Think about Chromium (which is not derived from webkit, that had to be replaced by Blink) Blink itself is derived from WebKit.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Blink was NOT derived, if derived means fork. It's a functional copy, with no copyright taint. A recreation with all-new code.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-dev/J41PSKuMan0/zcDKOchLmu0J https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-d... https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/master/Source/core/LICENSE-APPLE https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/master/So...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - eridius 10y ago
    No. Blink is, in fact, a fork of WebCore (which is WebKit minus JavaScriptCore).
dragandj 10y ago
> Not everyone wants to abandon the idea of having patents. That is fine, but then replacing GNU libraries is not waste, but investment. The authors of GNU libraries give their work for free, and would also like to be able to use other people's (potentially patentable) work in return.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  An utterly unnecessary investment is a waste. The GNU libraries have been largely sidelined, and will now slip into history.
icebraining 10y ago
Not everyone wants to abandon the idea of having patents. That's funny. How much waste has there been due to people having to work around patents? Is waste only a problem if nobody can profit from it? Yes, one can avoid that by paying the price of the patent; but the same is true with the GPL, you can follow the license. It's just a price in another kind. The waste resulting from not wanting to pay it applies to both cases.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Actually, a lot of nice discoveries started with someone who had to get around a patent. But yes, the free market involves waste - just not anything like as much waste as either not encouraging innovation, or keeping everything as trade secrets that can create monopolies for centuries (see the history of the forceps) resulting in uncounted deaths - plus trade secrets can be lost. Open source wasn't originally about creating waste and duplication. Let's not do that; since the bonus of encouraging innovation with financial reward doesn't happen, just the waste.
belorn 10y ago
The billions that have already been wasted on software patent could be used to pay developers making better software rather than reinventing around patents. That some handful companies decides to re-implement existing software just so they can go after developers with patents is a waste, one that most companies can't afford nor would it be good if they could. A total waste, caused by law that over-reaches with no legal or conclusive definition (According to the European Patent Office). Software is protected as works of literature under the Berne Convention, yet a work of literature is not patentable. We don't patent underlying methodologies of writing a story. We don't have hundred of patent with slight different wording of the concept of "hero and villain", nor trolls trying to sue every time someone writes a successful book. We don't have patents of "every day concept, but this time its a book". That would be a total waste, caused by over-reaching lobbyists that get to write their own laws if they just spend enough money on the winning candidate.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  See my remark above, it's NOT just about software patents - GPL grabs hardware patents too. No patent is respected. That's a problem.
AsyncAwait 10y ago
> Not everyone wants to abandon the idea of having patents. And not everyone is willing to donate their free time to enrich somebody else. You're not entitled to free code.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  And I don't want free code without contributing, but I want to contribute code or cash, not my patents or the keys to my car.
davidgerard 10y ago
The GPL hobbling software patents sounds like a massive plus, and anyone who considers it not a massive plus to be the sort of people the GPL was explicitly designed to protect against.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  For one more time, it's NOT just software patents. Plus you forgot the "IF" at the start of your sentence. Has it really discouraged software patents? No, patents (of both kinds) have sidelined GPL. As stated above the license given to the Linux kernel is "stranded" and therefore harmless, a special case.
  - davidgerard 10y ago
    Give me a clear example of the GPL affecting a hardware patent. (Where the hardware patent isn't really obviously an attempted end run around the GPL.) C'mon, something convincing. All the patent ills you're attributing to the GPL apply to the Apache License too, btw. AL2 is where GPL3 took its cue on patents.
throwaway91111 10y ago
Well it's evidently not a waste if it's getting use.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Less and less use. But the waste is that the whole effort had to be duplicated, and was. That's very real time and very real money. Don't pretend to be green if you think that's fine, no matter how avoidable.
michaelmrose 10y ago
Are you actually blaming gpl project creators for the waste created by others who didn't want to abide by the gpl? Isn't that a little backwards? Either you ought to acknowledge that everyone has a right to do their own thing or you ought to blame the other parties for the waste.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  The license rendered the product useless to businesses. If you think that's fine 'cause the revolution's imminent anyway, and patents will be put in history's dustbin, great. But the tragedy was easily avoided, with a license that didn't grab patents.
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    Why ought writers of gpl software care about selfish companies desire to get more while giving back little.

eridius 10y ago

> Think about Chromium (which is not derived from webkit, that had to be replaced by Blink) Blink itself is derived from WebKit.

Nomentatus 10y ago
Blink was NOT derived, if derived means fork. It's a functional copy, with no copyright taint. A recreation with all-new code.
- icebraining 10y ago
  https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-dev/J41PSKuMan0/zcDKOchLmu0J https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-d... https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/master/Source/core/LICENSE-APPLE https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/master/So...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- eridius 10y ago
  No. Blink is, in fact, a fork of WebCore (which is WebKit minus JavaScriptCore).

dragandj 10y ago

> Not everyone wants to abandon the idea of having patents. That is fine, but then replacing GNU libraries is not waste, but investment. The authors of GNU libraries give their work for free, and would also like to be able to use other people's (potentially patentable) work in return.

Nomentatus 10y ago
An utterly unnecessary investment is a waste. The GNU libraries have been largely sidelined, and will now slip into history.

icebraining 10y ago

Not everyone wants to abandon the idea of having patents. That's funny. How much waste has there been due to people having to work around patents? Is waste only a problem if nobody can profit from it? Yes, one can avoid that by paying the price of the patent; but the same is true with the GPL, you can follow the license. It's just a price in another kind. The waste resulting from not wanting to pay it applies to both cases.

Nomentatus 10y ago
Actually, a lot of nice discoveries started with someone who had to get around a patent. But yes, the free market involves waste - just not anything like as much waste as either not encouraging innovation, or keeping everything as trade secrets that can create monopolies for centuries (see the history of the forceps) resulting in uncounted deaths - plus trade secrets can be lost. Open source wasn't originally about creating waste and duplication. Let's not do that; since the bonus of encouraging innovation with financial reward doesn't happen, just the waste.

belorn 10y ago

The billions that have already been wasted on software patent could be used to pay developers making better software rather than reinventing around patents. That some handful companies decides to re-implement existing software just so they can go after developers with patents is a waste, one that most companies can't afford nor would it be good if they could. A total waste, caused by law that over-reaches with no legal or conclusive definition (According to the European Patent Office). Software is protected as works of literature under the Berne Convention, yet a work of literature is not patentable. We don't patent underlying methodologies of writing a story. We don't have hundred of patent with slight different wording of the concept of "hero and villain", nor trolls trying to sue every time someone writes a successful book. We don't have patents of "every day concept, but this time its a book". That would be a total waste, caused by over-reaching lobbyists that get to write their own laws if they just spend enough money on the winning candidate.

Nomentatus 10y ago
See my remark above, it's NOT just about software patents - GPL grabs hardware patents too. No patent is respected. That's a problem.

AsyncAwait 10y ago

> Not everyone wants to abandon the idea of having patents. And not everyone is willing to donate their free time to enrich somebody else. You're not entitled to free code.

Nomentatus 10y ago
And I don't want free code without contributing, but I want to contribute code or cash, not my patents or the keys to my car.

davidgerard 10y ago

The GPL hobbling software patents sounds like a massive plus, and anyone who considers it not a massive plus to be the sort of people the GPL was explicitly designed to protect against.

Nomentatus 10y ago
For one more time, it's NOT just software patents. Plus you forgot the "IF" at the start of your sentence. Has it really discouraged software patents? No, patents (of both kinds) have sidelined GPL. As stated above the license given to the Linux kernel is "stranded" and therefore harmless, a special case.
- davidgerard 10y ago
  Give me a clear example of the GPL affecting a hardware patent. (Where the hardware patent isn't really obviously an attempted end run around the GPL.) C'mon, something convincing. All the patent ills you're attributing to the GPL apply to the Apache License too, btw. AL2 is where GPL3 took its cue on patents.

throwaway91111 10y ago

Well it's evidently not a waste if it's getting use.

Nomentatus 10y ago
Less and less use. But the waste is that the whole effort had to be duplicated, and was. That's very real time and very real money. Don't pretend to be green if you think that's fine, no matter how avoidable.

michaelmrose 10y ago

Are you actually blaming gpl project creators for the waste created by others who didn't want to abide by the gpl? Isn't that a little backwards? Either you ought to acknowledge that everyone has a right to do their own thing or you ought to blame the other parties for the waste.

Nomentatus 10y ago
The license rendered the product useless to businesses. If you think that's fine 'cause the revolution's imminent anyway, and patents will be put in history's dustbin, great. But the tragedy was easily avoided, with a license that didn't grab patents.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  Why ought writers of gpl software care about selfish companies desire to get more while giving back little.