4 ms·

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 get

by 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...
  - lmm 10y ago
    > 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. That case really was a licensing issue. GCC's architecture was deliberately compromised for licensing reasons.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    The value of the more permissive license is obvious - it ends up being the final license in the end because it never needs to be replaced in order to do anything. Whereas spending billions to functionally reproduce code in order to replace one open source license with another is obviously an adverse event (the money could have been spent on hospitals or meals on wheels) that's entirely unavoidable and therefore fulfills the dictionary definition of a tragedy.

by Sacho 10y ago

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...
- lmm 10y ago
  > 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. That case really was a licensing issue. GCC's architecture was deliberately compromised for licensing reasons.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  The value of the more permissive license is obvious - it ends up being the final license in the end because it never needs to be replaced in order to do anything. Whereas spending billions to functionally reproduce code in order to replace one open source license with another is obviously an adverse event (the money could have been spent on hospitals or meals on wheels) that's entirely unavoidable and therefore fulfills the dictionary definition of a tragedy.