3 ms·

The headaches of removing GPL code from your desktop app code

6 points by iamelgringo 19y ago

SwellJoe 19y ago
I have to wonder how one would build a software product that is 40% GPL code, and not understand the implications (I know this is a hypothetical story, but it's just not believable). Ten years ago, sure. But Open Source and its viral licenses are pretty well understood at this point. This feels like FUD to me.
- m0nty 19y ago
  "This feels like FUD to me." It had that feel to it. And of course, it's impossible for a company to release GPL code and hit the big-time. Teh GPL will kill your business! [Edit: and the name of his site implies a less-than-helpful relationship to GNU software.]
- there 19y ago
  not all open source code has a viral gpl on it. none of these headaches would have occurred with bsd-licensed code.
n_ki 19y ago
Licence your desktop app under the GPL. Headache gone.
- marcus 19y ago
  That doesn't exactly work when your revenue comes from selling shrink-wrap software or games.
  - cstejerean 19y ago
    Yes it does. The people buying shrink-wrap software don't typically go online and compile from source. The users that are capable of compiling their own version (and supplying their own artwork) based on GPL source code are likely to just use (or develop) free alternatives to commercial software. So releasing your software under the GPL, even when you're in the business of selling said software is not exactly a bad idea.
    - swax 19y ago
      Someone can make a website called Compiled<x>.com and charge $25 (undercutting company) per download of the compiled product legally.
      - SwellJoe 19y ago
        And then I can make one called CheapCompiled<x>.com and charge $10 per download, undercutting both...and then some jackass gets the great idea to make a bittorrent of it...and then it gets included in the next Fedora release...and then some jerk decides to fix the worst bugs and forks off Super<x> and starts a project at Google code...and then the damned thing has 20 million users who aren't paying us a fuckin' dime. Actually none of these things sounds all that bad to me. But I also understand the GPL license and its relation to business extremely well. (My company sells a dual-licensed product that has a GPL variant, and we actually like the "and then the damned thing has 20 million users" aspect of Open Source.)
ibsulon 19y ago
smacks forehead Because, of course, just because something is provided for you gratis and libre means that it isn't without value. "The headaches from removing pirated libraries from your desktop app code?"

6 points by iamelgringo 19y ago

I have to wonder how one would build a software product that is 40% GPL code, and not understand the implications (I know this is a hypothetical story, but it's just not believable). Ten years ago, sure. But Open Source and its viral licenses are pretty well understood at this point. This feels like FUD to me.

m0nty 19y ago
"This feels like FUD to me." It had that feel to it. And of course, it's impossible for a company to release GPL code and hit the big-time. Teh GPL will kill your business! [Edit: and the name of his site implies a less-than-helpful relationship to GNU software.]
there 19y ago
not all open source code has a viral gpl on it. none of these headaches would have occurred with bsd-licensed code.

n_ki 19y ago

Licence your desktop app under the GPL. Headache gone.

marcus 19y ago
That doesn't exactly work when your revenue comes from selling shrink-wrap software or games.
- cstejerean 19y ago
  Yes it does. The people buying shrink-wrap software don't typically go online and compile from source. The users that are capable of compiling their own version (and supplying their own artwork) based on GPL source code are likely to just use (or develop) free alternatives to commercial software. So releasing your software under the GPL, even when you're in the business of selling said software is not exactly a bad idea.
  - swax 19y ago
    Someone can make a website called Compiled<x>.com and charge $25 (undercutting company) per download of the compiled product legally.
    - SwellJoe 19y ago
      And then I can make one called CheapCompiled<x>.com and charge $10 per download, undercutting both...and then some jackass gets the great idea to make a bittorrent of it...and then it gets included in the next Fedora release...and then some jerk decides to fix the worst bugs and forks off Super<x> and starts a project at Google code...and then the damned thing has 20 million users who aren't paying us a fuckin' dime. Actually none of these things sounds all that bad to me. But I also understand the GPL license and its relation to business extremely well. (My company sells a dual-licensed product that has a GPL variant, and we actually like the "and then the damned thing has 20 million users" aspect of Open Source.)

ibsulon 19y ago

smacks forehead Because, of course, just because something is provided for you gratis and libre means that it isn't without value. "The headaches from removing pirated libraries from your desktop app code?"