7 ms·

inb4 the Stallman disciples descend upon this comment. The things with FOSS is there are different degrees of rigidity. On the one hand, you have copyleft lice

inb4 the Stallman disciples descend upon this comment. The things with FOSS is there are different degrees of rigidity. On the one hand, you have copyleft licenses like GPL that tend to make commercial development very tricky. On the other hand you have more permissive licenses like MIT and Apache that do encourage further open source work but where the vast majority of improvements don't get committed back upstream (since they become a part of proprietary offerings).

jasonkostempski 10y ago
That's the difference between OSS and Free software. One focuses just on the benefits of working openly, the other is about making sure the user have full control of what their machine does. Open Source is a side effect of Free and it's a selling point to creators but the consumer is the priority. Edit: To be clear I'm talking more about philosophy, not licensing. I do still struggle with the idea of GPL requiring changes to be made public.
- lolc 10y ago
  GPLv2 does not require you to make your source changes public, it only demands that this remains an option for anybody who acquires a license from you. So if I sell you software under the GPL, I have to provide you the source. You are then allowed, but not required, to publish the source.
latj 10y ago
What is tricky about using GPL for commercial development?
- cyraxjoe 10y ago
  If you modify some free software, repackage and resell it without contributing the changes, then you are breaking the intentional viral effects of the license. Most of the web stuff that people work on these days is rather outside of this problem, unless is an AGPL license. It is tricky if you want to base your commercial product on a derivation of a GPL licensed software.
  - bkor 10y ago
    You don't have to contribute GPL changes back. Whomever you give a binary to you'll have to give the source to if they ask. It's pretty much that simple.
    - xenadu02 10y ago
      That's a distinction without a difference as anyone who receives the binary must also have access to the source and be free to redistribute that source, so effectively all derivative works of GPL'd code are GPL'd unless you refuse to distribute.
  - rini17 10y ago
    Not really, GPL only says whoever receives binaries, must also receive their source code. Receiver then can, but is not obliged to, publish it or contribute back. Still, yes it does cause problem with various licensing schemes. But per-copy licensing without source code availability is an atrocity enabled only by misapplication of copyright/IP laws, where copyright holder can write practically anything into the EULA and have the law system enforce the terms "for free". I hope our civilization eventually comes up with better and more GPL-aligned software distribution model.
- _ph_ 10y ago
  Per-copy licensing, which is the base of most commercial software distribution, is pretty much impossible with the GPL. Also, a software company might have licensed some parts of the code from another party - this might not be compatible with GPL. Finally, some companies like to keep trade secrets. This is also incompatible with the GPL. I can understand that many here disagree with this, and I am an open source advocate myself. Nevertheless, it is important to understand how some companies work. The best way to change this, is to create enough open source software, which can be used as a replacement for closed packages.
  - bkor 10y ago
    Red Hat charges per server, which is pretty much the same thing as per copy licensing.
    - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
      Not really. Customers are more than free to switch to CentOS, or even other distributions or pay someone to fork parts of Red Hat. Red Hat is providing support.
    - budman1 10y ago
      RedHat is smarter than everyone. The have obtained security accreditation that is required by the USG and many commercial auditors. Ultimate lock in and profit from a protected position. How many RHEL license are bought by the USG and the Fortune 500 for only this reason? RH, the compamy, is a good citizen. These rules only become onerous if you have money, so it is accepted.
    - fl0wenol 10y ago
      They figured it out. You're not paying for the software on that server. You're paying for a license to use a few non-free packages containing trademarked material (basically the visual skins / logos nicely factored out) but more importantly, support.
      - _ph_ 10y ago

jasonkostempski 10y ago

That's the difference between OSS and Free software. One focuses just on the benefits of working openly, the other is about making sure the user have full control of what their machine does. Open Source is a side effect of Free and it's a selling point to creators but the consumer is the priority. Edit: To be clear I'm talking more about philosophy, not licensing. I do still struggle with the idea of GPL requiring changes to be made public.

lolc 10y ago
GPLv2 does not require you to make your source changes public, it only demands that this remains an option for anybody who acquires a license from you. So if I sell you software under the GPL, I have to provide you the source. You are then allowed, but not required, to publish the source.

latj 10y ago

What is tricky about using GPL for commercial development?

cyraxjoe 10y ago
If you modify some free software, repackage and resell it without contributing the changes, then you are breaking the intentional viral effects of the license. Most of the web stuff that people work on these days is rather outside of this problem, unless is an AGPL license. It is tricky if you want to base your commercial product on a derivation of a GPL licensed software.
- bkor 10y ago
  You don't have to contribute GPL changes back. Whomever you give a binary to you'll have to give the source to if they ask. It's pretty much that simple.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    That's a distinction without a difference as anyone who receives the binary must also have access to the source and be free to redistribute that source, so effectively all derivative works of GPL'd code are GPL'd unless you refuse to distribute.
- rini17 10y ago
  Not really, GPL only says whoever receives binaries, must also receive their source code. Receiver then can, but is not obliged to, publish it or contribute back. Still, yes it does cause problem with various licensing schemes. But per-copy licensing without source code availability is an atrocity enabled only by misapplication of copyright/IP laws, where copyright holder can write practically anything into the EULA and have the law system enforce the terms "for free". I hope our civilization eventually comes up with better and more GPL-aligned software distribution model.
_ph_ 10y ago
Per-copy licensing, which is the base of most commercial software distribution, is pretty much impossible with the GPL. Also, a software company might have licensed some parts of the code from another party - this might not be compatible with GPL. Finally, some companies like to keep trade secrets. This is also incompatible with the GPL. I can understand that many here disagree with this, and I am an open source advocate myself. Nevertheless, it is important to understand how some companies work. The best way to change this, is to create enough open source software, which can be used as a replacement for closed packages.
- bkor 10y ago
  Red Hat charges per server, which is pretty much the same thing as per copy licensing.
  - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
    Not really. Customers are more than free to switch to CentOS, or even other distributions or pay someone to fork parts of Red Hat. Red Hat is providing support.
  - budman1 10y ago
    RedHat is smarter than everyone. The have obtained security accreditation that is required by the USG and many commercial auditors. Ultimate lock in and profit from a protected position. How many RHEL license are bought by the USG and the Fortune 500 for only this reason? RH, the compamy, is a good citizen. These rules only become onerous if you have money, so it is accepted.
  - fl0wenol 10y ago
    They figured it out. You're not paying for the software on that server. You're paying for a license to use a few non-free packages containing trademarked material (basically the visual skins / logos nicely factored out) but more importantly, support.
    - _ph_ 10y ago