4 ms·

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 n

by 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.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Contracts impose. Else enforcement couldn't be a topic. But suppose we allow your cavil, and try "insist" or "request"? What changes? Nothing. Better - companies are choosing to replicate, not stamping out kiddie parks. If you're going to end up with an MIT license, why not start there and avoid all the waste?
    - Sacho 10y ago
      You keep repeating this sentiment, but you haven't brought forward any argument why GPL doesn't achieve its goals, even if, eventually, some of the software gets reinvented with a different license. I could take your argument and use it the same way vs proprietary software - why even bother writing it, if some of it is going to end up being remade(or even just relicensed!) under an MIT license? In both cases, the developer extracted some value from the licensing.
      - Nomentatus 10y ago
        GPL wastes enormous, precious resources. That's not a sentiment, I've specified at least three large, replaced codebases in these comments. Whether, inside the bubble, GPLers are still happy with GPL, doesn't change that. Indeed, in many areas, it is already true that there's no point writing proprietary code, since open source code will be preferred by your customers - other companies that have been locked-in one time to many. re developers extracting dollars - some developers have used GPL as a poison-pill, to "encourage" purchase of a separate proprietary license that's modifiable, say. That's hardly evidence of GPL's attractiveness or utility! Much the reverse.
        Sacho 10y ago
        Like I said, you haven't provided an argument why an MIT license provides more value for a developer than a GPL license. Your arguments are collectivist in nature - the GPL developers should sacrifice their own beliefs "for the greater good", but they're not even guaranteedly "better" because quite often, the "waste" you describe involves refactoring and innovation, which are both big benefits for software. You gave as an example Blink vs Webkit and agreed to LLVM and GCC. In Blink's case, Google[0] argued: > The main reason is that Chromium uses a different multi-process architecture from other WebKit-based browsers. So, over the years, supporting multiple architectures has led to increasing complexity for both the WebKit and Chromium communities, slowing down the collective pace of innovation. In LLVM's case, I don't have a source available, but early in its development I recall arguments that it was easier to rearchitecture a new, modern compiler, rather than tweaking GCC, which carried a lot of baggage. This is quite common in open source, especially in web dev, where "screw it, I'll just rewrite this library better" happens constantly, even with MIT licensing. The "enormous waste" you're describing is thus not universal, but waste from your point of view. Tactically, do you feel a good way to convince people to stop GPL-ing their software is to dismiss their goals as "waste" and demand they submit "to the greater good", at least, your interpretation of it? [0] - http://www.chromium.org/blink/developer-faq#TOC-Why-is-Chrome-spawning-a-new-browser-engine- http://www.chromium.org/blink/developer-faq#TOC-Why-is-Chrom...
        10y ago
pksadiq 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. A user isn't required to accept GNU GPL license terms to simply use it. The user should be allowed to install a software released under the terms of GNU GPL even if the user refuses to accept the license terms. GNU GPL cares the modification and (re)distribution of the software. Not its mere use. Edit: Remove the previous edit. (If you are never releasing/distributing the combined work into public, it is Okay to link your code with an [AL]GPL code and use as you wish).
- Retra 10y ago
  By "use" I meant "use the code in your own software."

by Retra 10y ago

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.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Contracts impose. Else enforcement couldn't be a topic. But suppose we allow your cavil, and try "insist" or "request"? What changes? Nothing. Better - companies are choosing to replicate, not stamping out kiddie parks. If you're going to end up with an MIT license, why not start there and avoid all the waste?
  - Sacho 10y ago
    You keep repeating this sentiment, but you haven't brought forward any argument why GPL doesn't achieve its goals, even if, eventually, some of the software gets reinvented with a different license. I could take your argument and use it the same way vs proprietary software - why even bother writing it, if some of it is going to end up being remade(or even just relicensed!) under an MIT license? In both cases, the developer extracted some value from the licensing.
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      GPL wastes enormous, precious resources. That's not a sentiment, I've specified at least three large, replaced codebases in these comments. Whether, inside the bubble, GPLers are still happy with GPL, doesn't change that. Indeed, in many areas, it is already true that there's no point writing proprietary code, since open source code will be preferred by your customers - other companies that have been locked-in one time to many. re developers extracting dollars - some developers have used GPL as a poison-pill, to "encourage" purchase of a separate proprietary license that's modifiable, say. That's hardly evidence of GPL's attractiveness or utility! Much the reverse.
      - Sacho 10y ago
        Like I said, you haven't provided an argument why an MIT license provides more value for a developer than a GPL license. Your arguments are collectivist in nature - the GPL developers should sacrifice their own beliefs "for the greater good", but they're not even guaranteedly "better" because quite often, the "waste" you describe involves refactoring and innovation, which are both big benefits for software. You gave as an example Blink vs Webkit and agreed to LLVM and GCC. In Blink's case, Google[0] argued: > The main reason is that Chromium uses a different multi-process architecture from other WebKit-based browsers. So, over the years, supporting multiple architectures has led to increasing complexity for both the WebKit and Chromium communities, slowing down the collective pace of innovation. In LLVM's case, I don't have a source available, but early in its development I recall arguments that it was easier to rearchitecture a new, modern compiler, rather than tweaking GCC, which carried a lot of baggage. This is quite common in open source, especially in web dev, where "screw it, I'll just rewrite this library better" happens constantly, even with MIT licensing. The "enormous waste" you're describing is thus not universal, but waste from your point of view. Tactically, do you feel a good way to convince people to stop GPL-ing their software is to dismiss their goals as "waste" and demand they submit "to the greater good", at least, your interpretation of it? [0] - http://www.chromium.org/blink/developer-faq#TOC-Why-is-Chrome-spawning-a-new-browser-engine- http://www.chromium.org/blink/developer-faq#TOC-Why-is-Chrom...
        10y ago

pksadiq 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. A user isn't required to accept GNU GPL license terms to simply use it. The user should be allowed to install a software released under the terms of GNU GPL even if the user refuses to accept the license terms. GNU GPL cares the modification and (re)distribution of the software. Not its mere use. Edit: Remove the previous edit. (If you are never releasing/distributing the combined work into public, it is Okay to link your code with an [AL]GPL code and use as you wish).

Retra 10y ago
By "use" I meant "use the code in your own software."