4 ms·

The issue is that permissive licenses make you compete with yourself. Let's say ZFS would be released under a BSD license. Linux would eat it up and improve i

The issue is that permissive licenses make you compete with yourself. Let's say ZFS would be released under a BSD license. Linux would eat it up and improve it. So GPL code is >= BSD (in theory. At this point, Linux can't just use BSD code because of arch differences, but it's true for divers - any BSD driver can be swallowed up by Linux, but not vice versa). But the same is true for BSD -> Proprietary. Any good BSD codebase can be eaten up by, improved, and closed source.

Nomentatus 10y ago
If you mean the Linux kernel, the GPL patent permissions are stranded and therefore null - since it can't work alone. Therefore it's had a very good run. If you mean Linux as in GNULinux, the whole GNU library was recreated in a more permissive license by Google at immense expense - which is what generally happens with GPL licensed code. By no coincidence, this stranded the patent grants to the kernel - but now it looks like Google is going to go to the trouble of recreating/replacing the Linux kernel as well. Copyleft without a patent grab should be tried - it might actually work. As for GPL, history says nope.
- flukus 10y ago
  > If you mean Linux as in GNULinux, the whole GNU library was recreated in a more permissive license by Google at immense expense Good, they want android to become a closed source commercial product and that should be expensive. And when that happens everyone will be reminded of why the GPL is a good thing.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    No, the new libraries aren't closed source. Google recreated the libraries under a properly liberal open source license without a software-and-hardware patent grab (or a ban on tivoization for security purposes) that other can use, and have used. Another massive chunk of GPL enters history, except as legacy cruft. Waste, but we finally end up with a non-perverse open source license. Your argument seems to be that anything that makes phones more expensive is wonderful, so go economic waste! Because something as unholy as a corporation is involved. A passive version of The Unabomber's creed, I suppose.
    - flukus 10y ago
      > No, the new libraries aren't closed source. Not yet, but they're permissive enough that google can close source them any time they wish. And when that happens there will be a lot of crying about google doing something they are specifically allowed to do.
      - Nomentatus 10y ago
        No, they can't take them back. BSD and MIT aren't revokable. Anyone can fork them, but the BSD code remains available.
        flukus 10y ago
        And because android is tied to google a fork would work and the current android would fall farther behind, it's already a fork of linux, just an OSS one.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        As I understand it, in US law any gratuitous license is revocable at will; terms of a written license that purport otherwise may (or may not), depending on the specific circumstances of use after revocation, impact the effect of revocation under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, but that's not the same as the license actually being irrevocable. Of course, while there are conflicting theories about whether the GPL is gratuitous or not (and this may actually vary from case to case—if you buy software that comes with GPL terms, it is clearly not gratuitous), this potentially affects the GPL as much as any permissive license.
        Nomentatus 10y ago
        You may be assuming that no consideration is given (consideration being necessary to create a legal contract) - but in general charities and public goods are the exception to this; the public good done is assumed to be consideration according to law. Therefore, for example, pledges to charities are regarded as valid contracts that can be enforced.

Nomentatus 10y ago

If you mean the Linux kernel, the GPL patent permissions are stranded and therefore null - since it can't work alone. Therefore it's had a very good run. If you mean Linux as in GNULinux, the whole GNU library was recreated in a more permissive license by Google at immense expense - which is what generally happens with GPL licensed code. By no coincidence, this stranded the patent grants to the kernel - but now it looks like Google is going to go to the trouble of recreating/replacing the Linux kernel as well. Copyleft without a patent grab should be tried - it might actually work. As for GPL, history says nope.

flukus 10y ago
> If you mean Linux as in GNULinux, the whole GNU library was recreated in a more permissive license by Google at immense expense Good, they want android to become a closed source commercial product and that should be expensive. And when that happens everyone will be reminded of why the GPL is a good thing.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  No, the new libraries aren't closed source. Google recreated the libraries under a properly liberal open source license without a software-and-hardware patent grab (or a ban on tivoization for security purposes) that other can use, and have used. Another massive chunk of GPL enters history, except as legacy cruft. Waste, but we finally end up with a non-perverse open source license. Your argument seems to be that anything that makes phones more expensive is wonderful, so go economic waste! Because something as unholy as a corporation is involved. A passive version of The Unabomber's creed, I suppose.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > No, the new libraries aren't closed source. Not yet, but they're permissive enough that google can close source them any time they wish. And when that happens there will be a lot of crying about google doing something they are specifically allowed to do.
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      No, they can't take them back. BSD and MIT aren't revokable. Anyone can fork them, but the BSD code remains available.
      - flukus 10y ago
        And because android is tied to google a fork would work and the current android would fall farther behind, it's already a fork of linux, just an OSS one.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        As I understand it, in US law any gratuitous license is revocable at will; terms of a written license that purport otherwise may (or may not), depending on the specific circumstances of use after revocation, impact the effect of revocation under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, but that's not the same as the license actually being irrevocable. Of course, while there are conflicting theories about whether the GPL is gratuitous or not (and this may actually vary from case to case—if you buy software that comes with GPL terms, it is clearly not gratuitous), this potentially affects the GPL as much as any permissive license.
        Nomentatus 10y ago
        You may be assuming that no consideration is given (consideration being necessary to create a legal contract) - but in general charities and public goods are the exception to this; the public good done is assumed to be consideration according to law. Therefore, for example, pledges to charities are regarded as valid contracts that can be enforced.