15 ms·

There are other reasons not to do GPL enforcement too, which Greg K-H sums up very well: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August

There are other reasons not to do GPL enforcement too, which Greg K-H sums up very well: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003578.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/... Summary: Open Source lives and dies by community and engagement. Lawsuits make people disengage. Better to spend your resources working with people to get them to come around gently.

paxcoder 10y ago
>get [people] to come around gently That's GPL enforcement. This is mostly how FSF, SFLC et al do it and they win battles. Recently they're actually waging a legal one against VMWare but I don't see the company deterred from contributing as much as they did before. Would be nice if they contributed more. I don't think we should care about proprietary makers' feelings here. What hurts free software more is FUD and villification of copyleft.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  I don't care if I get downvoted for this, but what hurts free software is licensing under the GPL. It's a cancer that infects anything it is compiled into. There's a _TON_ of amazing software out there, which sadly is licensed under the GPL, so it just can't be used in something proprietary, because it would mean open sourcing your entire codebase. What's the point of open sourcing something if it can't be used in a proprietary product? At least release it under a license so that it can be used + allow the users to contribute their changes back to the original codebase. Plenty of companies will do this, but only if they can actually use it in their app or software. GPL code is, unless it's run in a self contained process, for all intents and purposes useless.
  - __jal 10y ago
    1995 called, it wants its bad arguments back. The honest answer is that people releasing software under the GPL don't want you using their code in your proprietary whatever. They explicitly said they don't want you to do that. How is that different than you releasing your proprietary whatever, and conditioning use on paying you money and agreeing not to share it? If you get to set the terms of use of your code, so do other people. > What's the point of open sourcing something if it can't be used in a proprietary product? Obviously, the point is to share it with people who want to do something other than use it in a proprietary product. Complaining about free gifts generally doesn't end very well. Don't like the terms? Pretend it is Oracle or Microsoft crown-jewel code. You can't do what you want with that, either.
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      > How is that different than you releasing your proprietary whatever, and conditioning use on paying you money and agreeing not to share it? If you get to set the terms of use of your code, so do other people. One component != an entire product. That's like saying you invent an open source car engine licensed under GPL. And now you can't use it in any car, because you can't build an entire car on your own, and even if you could, you'd have to give the entire car design away for free. I don't mind giving back any improvements I make to a library (and I've done so several times in the past), but I honestly don't see the point in releasing anything under GPL. That's like saying, you know what guys, I love the fact that no one is ever going to bother using this for something great. The only use case the GPL works in, if it's an entire product on its own, i.e. MySQL, etc. Closed source doesn't always mean evil. Open source doesn't always mean good.
      - Retra 10y ago
        If you don't accept the GPL license, then the code is not open to you. Treat it like you would any other closed source code: don't use it. If you have such a noble use of the code, feel free to ask the authors to be charitable and license it to you under different terms.
        Nomentatus 10y ago
        But again, what actually happens is that trying to impose a GPL license (that grabs both hardware and software patents) merely causes someone else to replicate the whole effort under a better open source license.
        quadrangle 10y ago
        "impose"… if I write some code and put it under the GPL, I'm not imposing anything. "better"… That's sorta like saying that when some community gets together and builds a public park that when a wealthy company comes around and builds a fancy exclusive country club that the terms of the country club are better, and if only the folks had just let the country club folks build their exclusive clubhouse in the middle of the original park, that would be better because it doesn't cause them to have to go buy and prepare a different plot of land.
  - tytso 10y ago
    There is, alas, plenty of examples of code which were based on BSD-licensed code, and _not_ given back to the community. Exhibit 1: BSD code (open source) and WAFL (netapp's write anywhere file system that was written on top of BSD, and never given back). If the point is so that people contribute the changes back to the original codebase (which you seem to agree with), then the point of using the GPL is to make sure that actually happens. If it is used in a proprietary product, and never given back, from the perspective of the open source world, that use of the code might as well have never happened.
    - greenhouse_gas 10y ago
      Example 2: Cyanogen. Remember how the internet exploded when Cyanogen tried to commercialize CM (and the Focal controversy), and contributers were angry that Cyanogen made a company "off their backs" which sold a closed-source improvement of CM? For some reason, had Samsung done the same, everyone would have praised them to the heavens, it would have been "the obvious success of permissive licencing". Now, when a founder and major contributor did the same to his OS project, everyone cried foul. But Lineage is still Apache2, for some reason.
      - Sacho 10y ago
        Erm, weren't the contributors angry because they weren't getting compensation for their GPL-contributed work? > For some reason, had Samsung done the same, everyone would have praised them to the heavens, it would have been "the obvious success of permissive licencing". Do you have an oracle or a time machine to know this?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      > If it is used in a proprietary product, and never given back, from the perspective of the open source world, that use of the code might as well have never happened. That's obviously not how it works in the real world. Out of ten people, 5 might give back, and 5 might not. You're essentially saying then that the contribution of the first 5 isn't worth it, because the other 5 wouldn't be contributing. Any contribution is great. The more a library is being used (commercially or non commercially), the more contributors it'll have in the long run. It's not a zero sum game.
  - snakeanus 10y ago
    There's a _TON_ of amazing software out there, which sadly is licensed under a non-free license, so it just can't be used in something free, because it would make your program proprietary.
- greenhouse_gas 10y ago
  FSF can "educate" because they have a stick. No education worked with MS and BSD.
ramshorns 10y ago
These look like good reasons not to resort to lawsuits, but he does say he doesn't oppose GPL enforcement. It looks like he agrees with Bradley Kuhn that the best way to do enforcement is to educate companies and convince them to comply, while they disagree on how often that fails and what to do if it does.
hackits 10y ago
From a person who makes a living selling software I like GPL v3 where I dislike GPL v2. This mostly resolves around that I can offer a proprietary license to the clients for the software in situations they dis-like GPL v3 but it also keeps everyone source code open for modifications.
- greenhouse_gas 10y ago
  You can do the same with GPL2 (if you have a CLA, see MySQL (are you thinking of AGPL by any chance?)). The issue is that I don't see why would someone code for you for free, if you're going to sell the resultant code. For example, I don't think IBM would contribute to Linux if Linus was considered "the sole owner" and sold GPL exemptions.
  - hackits 10y ago
    GPL2 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but credit the software package/module in your read-me.txt file and where to find it. By any chance you make modifications please make it available or publish them so it can be included back into the product. GPL3 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but you need to also release your product under GPL3 and make it available to the public (eg.. Copy left). The caveat of GPL3 is if the legal department doesn't like it, they can negotiate with the developer to purchase a GPL2 license, or proprietary license that comes with support. Mostly boils down if you want everyone to play nice.
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      You've made a distinction without a difference. Both licenses are copyleft. You choose GPL in the first place 'cause it's a more toxic poison pill vs other businesses. That's its function for you. By this measure GPL 3 is indeed the better poison pill because it precludes tivoization as well as going for the old hardware-and-software patent grab, too.
- pksadiq 10y ago
  > I can offer a proprietary license to the clients for the software in situations they dis-like GPL v3 This is how business works for codes like Qt and Odoo. They didn't choose [AL]GPLv3+ for the software to be free, but (or along with), for the reason that it would benefit them. The same tactic may be used by Canonical (Ubuntu) for their code like Mir, Unity, and other codes with CLA in the near future. For me, GPLv3 gives the following additional protection: * Patent protection from the authors (for their own patents that are used in the software) * More freedom (Eg: A router with GPLv2 Linux + Busybox is simply open source, not free software. That is, you can get the source code of those Linux + Busybox. But the router company may not give you a way to modify the software bundled with the router. GPLv3 protects the users against such locks). * Easier distribution requirement. If a user asks for source code of some GPLv2 code in a CD or some other offline media, the developer is obliged to (of course the developer can ask for its expenses). for a GPLv3+ code, it is enough to be hosted online/emailed.

paxcoder 10y ago

>get [people] to come around gently That's GPL enforcement. This is mostly how FSF, SFLC et al do it and they win battles. Recently they're actually waging a legal one against VMWare but I don't see the company deterred from contributing as much as they did before. Would be nice if they contributed more. I don't think we should care about proprietary makers' feelings here. What hurts free software more is FUD and villification of copyleft.

charlesdm 10y ago
I don't care if I get downvoted for this, but what hurts free software is licensing under the GPL. It's a cancer that infects anything it is compiled into. There's a _TON_ of amazing software out there, which sadly is licensed under the GPL, so it just can't be used in something proprietary, because it would mean open sourcing your entire codebase. What's the point of open sourcing something if it can't be used in a proprietary product? At least release it under a license so that it can be used + allow the users to contribute their changes back to the original codebase. Plenty of companies will do this, but only if they can actually use it in their app or software. GPL code is, unless it's run in a self contained process, for all intents and purposes useless.
- __jal 10y ago
  1995 called, it wants its bad arguments back. The honest answer is that people releasing software under the GPL don't want you using their code in your proprietary whatever. They explicitly said they don't want you to do that. How is that different than you releasing your proprietary whatever, and conditioning use on paying you money and agreeing not to share it? If you get to set the terms of use of your code, so do other people. > What's the point of open sourcing something if it can't be used in a proprietary product? Obviously, the point is to share it with people who want to do something other than use it in a proprietary product. Complaining about free gifts generally doesn't end very well. Don't like the terms? Pretend it is Oracle or Microsoft crown-jewel code. You can't do what you want with that, either.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    > How is that different than you releasing your proprietary whatever, and conditioning use on paying you money and agreeing not to share it? If you get to set the terms of use of your code, so do other people. One component != an entire product. That's like saying you invent an open source car engine licensed under GPL. And now you can't use it in any car, because you can't build an entire car on your own, and even if you could, you'd have to give the entire car design away for free. I don't mind giving back any improvements I make to a library (and I've done so several times in the past), but I honestly don't see the point in releasing anything under GPL. That's like saying, you know what guys, I love the fact that no one is ever going to bother using this for something great. The only use case the GPL works in, if it's an entire product on its own, i.e. MySQL, etc. Closed source doesn't always mean evil. Open source doesn't always mean good.
    - Retra 10y ago
      If you don't accept the GPL license, then the code is not open to you. Treat it like you would any other closed source code: don't use it. If you have such a noble use of the code, feel free to ask the authors to be charitable and license it to you under different terms.
      - Nomentatus 10y ago
        But again, what actually happens is that trying to impose a GPL license (that grabs both hardware and software patents) merely causes someone else to replicate the whole effort under a better open source license.
        quadrangle 10y ago
        "impose"… if I write some code and put it under the GPL, I'm not imposing anything. "better"… That's sorta like saying that when some community gets together and builds a public park that when a wealthy company comes around and builds a fancy exclusive country club that the terms of the country club are better, and if only the folks had just let the country club folks build their exclusive clubhouse in the middle of the original park, that would be better because it doesn't cause them to have to go buy and prepare a different plot of land.
- tytso 10y ago
  There is, alas, plenty of examples of code which were based on BSD-licensed code, and _not_ given back to the community. Exhibit 1: BSD code (open source) and WAFL (netapp's write anywhere file system that was written on top of BSD, and never given back). If the point is so that people contribute the changes back to the original codebase (which you seem to agree with), then the point of using the GPL is to make sure that actually happens. If it is used in a proprietary product, and never given back, from the perspective of the open source world, that use of the code might as well have never happened.
  - greenhouse_gas 10y ago
    Example 2: Cyanogen. Remember how the internet exploded when Cyanogen tried to commercialize CM (and the Focal controversy), and contributers were angry that Cyanogen made a company "off their backs" which sold a closed-source improvement of CM? For some reason, had Samsung done the same, everyone would have praised them to the heavens, it would have been "the obvious success of permissive licencing". Now, when a founder and major contributor did the same to his OS project, everyone cried foul. But Lineage is still Apache2, for some reason.
    - Sacho 10y ago
      Erm, weren't the contributors angry because they weren't getting compensation for their GPL-contributed work? > For some reason, had Samsung done the same, everyone would have praised them to the heavens, it would have been "the obvious success of permissive licencing". Do you have an oracle or a time machine to know this?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    > If it is used in a proprietary product, and never given back, from the perspective of the open source world, that use of the code might as well have never happened. That's obviously not how it works in the real world. Out of ten people, 5 might give back, and 5 might not. You're essentially saying then that the contribution of the first 5 isn't worth it, because the other 5 wouldn't be contributing. Any contribution is great. The more a library is being used (commercially or non commercially), the more contributors it'll have in the long run. It's not a zero sum game.
- snakeanus 10y ago
  There's a _TON_ of amazing software out there, which sadly is licensed under a non-free license, so it just can't be used in something free, because it would make your program proprietary.
greenhouse_gas 10y ago
FSF can "educate" because they have a stick. No education worked with MS and BSD.

ramshorns 10y ago

These look like good reasons not to resort to lawsuits, but he does say he doesn't oppose GPL enforcement. It looks like he agrees with Bradley Kuhn that the best way to do enforcement is to educate companies and convince them to comply, while they disagree on how often that fails and what to do if it does.

hackits 10y ago

From a person who makes a living selling software I like GPL v3 where I dislike GPL v2. This mostly resolves around that I can offer a proprietary license to the clients for the software in situations they dis-like GPL v3 but it also keeps everyone source code open for modifications.

greenhouse_gas 10y ago
You can do the same with GPL2 (if you have a CLA, see MySQL (are you thinking of AGPL by any chance?)). The issue is that I don't see why would someone code for you for free, if you're going to sell the resultant code. For example, I don't think IBM would contribute to Linux if Linus was considered "the sole owner" and sold GPL exemptions.
- hackits 10y ago
  GPL2 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but credit the software package/module in your read-me.txt file and where to find it. By any chance you make modifications please make it available or publish them so it can be included back into the product. GPL3 - I give you my time and my work, you can sell it or include it in your product but you need to also release your product under GPL3 and make it available to the public (eg.. Copy left). The caveat of GPL3 is if the legal department doesn't like it, they can negotiate with the developer to purchase a GPL2 license, or proprietary license that comes with support. Mostly boils down if you want everyone to play nice.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    You've made a distinction without a difference. Both licenses are copyleft. You choose GPL in the first place 'cause it's a more toxic poison pill vs other businesses. That's its function for you. By this measure GPL 3 is indeed the better poison pill because it precludes tivoization as well as going for the old hardware-and-software patent grab, too.
pksadiq 10y ago
> I can offer a proprietary license to the clients for the software in situations they dis-like GPL v3 This is how business works for codes like Qt and Odoo. They didn't choose [AL]GPLv3+ for the software to be free, but (or along with), for the reason that it would benefit them. The same tactic may be used by Canonical (Ubuntu) for their code like Mir, Unity, and other codes with CLA in the near future. For me, GPLv3 gives the following additional protection: * Patent protection from the authors (for their own patents that are used in the software) * More freedom (Eg: A router with GPLv2 Linux + Busybox is simply open source, not free software. That is, you can get the source code of those Linux + Busybox. But the router company may not give you a way to modify the software bundled with the router. GPLv3 protects the users against such locks). * Easier distribution requirement. If a user asks for source code of some GPLv2 code in a CD or some other offline media, the developer is obliged to (of course the developer can ask for its expenses). for a GPLv3+ code, it is enough to be hosted online/emailed.