5 ms·

> I'm very outspoken against the GPL I'm curious as to why. The GPL has manifestly built the modern internet (cloud servers are mostly Linux, most IT startups

by adekok 10y ago

> I'm very outspoken against the GPL I'm curious as to why. The GPL has manifestly built the modern internet (cloud servers are mostly Linux, most IT startups use Linux, etc.) There are other open source licences which are also widely used (Apache, BSD, MIT). So I think the key thing to this wide-spread success is open source in general, and not the license in particular. Would you say that the GPL is negative? I.e. would we have been better off of Linux was BSD licenses? If so, why? If not, why be against the GPL?

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Personally, I find it hilarious that people will proclaim copyleft as the "most free", when it not only is more restrictive, but forces people who use it to open source their own contributions as well. I don't think any license should be able to tell people what to do with their own work, which yes, includes contributions to existing work. Even though I personally believe in open sourcing everything possible, when all else is equal, I would always choose something that isn't copyleft over something that is. Because I shouldn't really have to be bothered by copyright infringement concerns when using open source software.
- swsieber 10y ago
  You have to open your contributions when you build upon GPL'd software, not when you use it. The GPL is very much centered around the end user, not programmers who build things. We often talk about the GPL as programmers and forget it was really built to protect the average joe from being locked out. It's most free for end users.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Sure, I get that. But that makes it a very opinionated form of free and open. While permissive licenses like Apache and MIT do have terms, they are much more akin to saying "here is a thing I made, and I'm sharing it with whoever wants to use it and whatever they want to do with it". Whereas copyleft licenses are more like "I'll share this with you, but you have to use it in accordance with my beliefs". While I accept that the OSI definition of "open source" is pretty much universally accepted and probably isn't going to change, I personally don't really feel like copyleft should qualify because of that level of control it exerts.
    - swsieber 10y ago
      That's a good point. Copy left and open source have very different targets and just happen to share many characteristics.
  - chipotle_coyote 10y ago
    I suspect we talk about the GPL as programmers because the relative freedom level of a software license matters far more to us than it does to actual end users. Restrictions on what you can do with the source code only matter if you're both interested in and capable of modifying that source code. On a practical level, the Average Joe is "locked out" from modifying an application's source code by virtue of not being capable of performing that modification, not by the license. I have a lot of non-developer friends and acquaintances who use LibreOffice, and I can assure you that they're using it for the "free as in beer" aspect, not because of a philosophical attachment to free software. For most end users, freedom is contingent on data portability, not license terms: if I can open my word processing document or Photoshop file, it doesn't matter to me in practice whether the editor is open or closed source. If the application stops being developed, I can move to something else with minimal pain. But if we're talking about tools for a developer audience--like RethinkDB, and frankly a whole lot of other open source software--then developers are the end users, and so the license really does matter. I've long thought that one of the strengths of the GPL is that it's more restrictive from a developer standpoint, rather than less. If I was trying to build a company around open source software, the (A)GPL would be attractive expressly because it makes it more difficult for competitors to build on. If the company goes away and there's no way for someone to buy a commercial license with a different set of restrictions, that can become an issue, as we've seen with RethinkDB -- but the (A)GPL isn't necessarily an impediment to strong community development, as we've seen with, well, a lot of other software over the last two decades.
    - drdaeman 10y ago
      > because the relative freedom level of a software license matters far more to us than it does to actual end users Nah, it's not that simple. Ever saw a giant chorus singing "oh almighty developers please make this and that" for tiny features? I think every other product support forum is just like that. And I also saw situations when someone on the outside had hacked features that weren't provided by original developers. Both free software projects and proprietary software. So freedoms actually matter to the "common folk", they just don't consciously recognize that and surely they don't know the terminology.
- baq 10y ago
  GPL makes the code free. The permissive licenses make the developers free.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    GPL makes the code free in perpetuity, and therefore the users free from developers (or, more precisely, from those who hire developers).
the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
> I.e. would we have been better off of Linux was BSD licenses? For the most part it does not matter if Linux is GPL or not because GPL functions very differently for operating systems than for libraries and applications. However the GPL is causing issues for Linux as well and there are some ongoing lawsuits involving the GPL in the context of the Linux Kernel which will be interesting to see. I do not know what a world looks like where the GPL does not exist so I won't judge that. The GPL was and is amazing to help the Open Source movement however it's becoming less and less relevant for new projects. > why be against the GPL? It's a very complicated license, impossible to evolve and means that you can build something that you cannot ship on another platform because that platform is GPL incompatible. For instance you will never see GPLv3 code running on iOS because you just can't have it there. The mechanics of the license are very complex and I do not agree with the "force people to contribute" approach. Good contributions come anyways, the bad ones I do not care. If someone wants to fuck over a license holder over they can do it regardless (for instance by providing close to unreadable GPL code :)
- greyman 10y ago
  > Good contributions come anyways (...) That is hard to say. Some contributors only contribute to GPL projects, since they want that derivative works of their work to stay open-sourced. I think they should have a right to require that.
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    Then that's fine. The contributors that do not contribute to my projects are irrelevant for me :)
- PuercoPop 10y ago
  > For instance you will never see GPLv3 code running on iOS because you just can't have it there That would be a case against iOS, take it up with the masters of your walled garden.

by adekok 10y ago

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Personally, I find it hilarious that people will proclaim copyleft as the "most free", when it not only is more restrictive, but forces people who use it to open source their own contributions as well. I don't think any license should be able to tell people what to do with their own work, which yes, includes contributions to existing work. Even though I personally believe in open sourcing everything possible, when all else is equal, I would always choose something that isn't copyleft over something that is. Because I shouldn't really have to be bothered by copyright infringement concerns when using open source software.

swsieber 10y ago
You have to open your contributions when you build upon GPL'd software, not when you use it. The GPL is very much centered around the end user, not programmers who build things. We often talk about the GPL as programmers and forget it was really built to protect the average joe from being locked out. It's most free for end users.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Sure, I get that. But that makes it a very opinionated form of free and open. While permissive licenses like Apache and MIT do have terms, they are much more akin to saying "here is a thing I made, and I'm sharing it with whoever wants to use it and whatever they want to do with it". Whereas copyleft licenses are more like "I'll share this with you, but you have to use it in accordance with my beliefs". While I accept that the OSI definition of "open source" is pretty much universally accepted and probably isn't going to change, I personally don't really feel like copyleft should qualify because of that level of control it exerts.
  - swsieber 10y ago
    That's a good point. Copy left and open source have very different targets and just happen to share many characteristics.
- chipotle_coyote 10y ago
  I suspect we talk about the GPL as programmers because the relative freedom level of a software license matters far more to us than it does to actual end users. Restrictions on what you can do with the source code only matter if you're both interested in and capable of modifying that source code. On a practical level, the Average Joe is "locked out" from modifying an application's source code by virtue of not being capable of performing that modification, not by the license. I have a lot of non-developer friends and acquaintances who use LibreOffice, and I can assure you that they're using it for the "free as in beer" aspect, not because of a philosophical attachment to free software. For most end users, freedom is contingent on data portability, not license terms: if I can open my word processing document or Photoshop file, it doesn't matter to me in practice whether the editor is open or closed source. If the application stops being developed, I can move to something else with minimal pain. But if we're talking about tools for a developer audience--like RethinkDB, and frankly a whole lot of other open source software--then developers are the end users, and so the license really does matter. I've long thought that one of the strengths of the GPL is that it's more restrictive from a developer standpoint, rather than less. If I was trying to build a company around open source software, the (A)GPL would be attractive expressly because it makes it more difficult for competitors to build on. If the company goes away and there's no way for someone to buy a commercial license with a different set of restrictions, that can become an issue, as we've seen with RethinkDB -- but the (A)GPL isn't necessarily an impediment to strong community development, as we've seen with, well, a lot of other software over the last two decades.
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    > because the relative freedom level of a software license matters far more to us than it does to actual end users Nah, it's not that simple. Ever saw a giant chorus singing "oh almighty developers please make this and that" for tiny features? I think every other product support forum is just like that. And I also saw situations when someone on the outside had hacked features that weren't provided by original developers. Both free software projects and proprietary software. So freedoms actually matter to the "common folk", they just don't consciously recognize that and surely they don't know the terminology.
baq 10y ago
GPL makes the code free. The permissive licenses make the developers free.
- webmaven 10y ago
  GPL makes the code free in perpetuity, and therefore the users free from developers (or, more precisely, from those who hire developers).

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago

> I.e. would we have been better off of Linux was BSD licenses? For the most part it does not matter if Linux is GPL or not because GPL functions very differently for operating systems than for libraries and applications. However the GPL is causing issues for Linux as well and there are some ongoing lawsuits involving the GPL in the context of the Linux Kernel which will be interesting to see. I do not know what a world looks like where the GPL does not exist so I won't judge that. The GPL was and is amazing to help the Open Source movement however it's becoming less and less relevant for new projects. > why be against the GPL? It's a very complicated license, impossible to evolve and means that you can build something that you cannot ship on another platform because that platform is GPL incompatible. For instance you will never see GPLv3 code running on iOS because you just can't have it there. The mechanics of the license are very complex and I do not agree with the "force people to contribute" approach. Good contributions come anyways, the bad ones I do not care. If someone wants to fuck over a license holder over they can do it regardless (for instance by providing close to unreadable GPL code :)

greyman 10y ago
> Good contributions come anyways (...) That is hard to say. Some contributors only contribute to GPL projects, since they want that derivative works of their work to stay open-sourced. I think they should have a right to require that.
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  Then that's fine. The contributors that do not contribute to my projects are irrelevant for me :)
PuercoPop 10y ago
> For instance you will never see GPLv3 code running on iOS because you just can't have it there That would be a case against iOS, take it up with the masters of your walled garden.