17 ms·

The Linux Foundation: Not a Friend of Desktop Linux, the GPL, or Openness

158 points by zulrah 10y ago

AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. One person involved with the Linux Foundation wrote an article that used some terms this author and some others didn't like, and after some outcry the Linux Foundation removed it. Somehow this makes the entire organization a non-friend of Desktop Linux and the GPL? It's just such a massive leap of logic. The GPL is in the most restrictive class of open-source licenses for companies, and it is viral by nature. Should those terms be sugar-coated? I didn't read an ounce of contempt in the quoted section.
- Jonnax 10y ago
  Well to be fair to the author the writer of the article has the job title: Sr. Director Open Source Consulting Services And they're posting on the Linux Foundation's site so that's a bit more than just some random person writing an article for the site. Also the term "viral" comes off as an insult to the licence, I think the term GNU Public Virus used to be a common descriptor. I think that's why the term Copyleft was introduced.
  - AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
    I don't see 'viral' as an insult, I see it as a feature. I'm certainly pro-GPL, but I don't use it in too many of my projects. When I do use it, it's because I want that viral nature. When I don't, it's because I want people to have the freedom to modify it on their terms. However, pretending that every project should be licensed under copyleft licenses or that there's no room for criticism of the GPL smacks of zealotry. As for the author, I don't have the full article, but he isn't listed on the 'Board Member', 'Leadership', or 'Technical Advisory Board' sections on the Linux Foundation webpage. Everyone there seems to have pretty damn fancy titles. I have no idea of his actual position in the hierarchy.
    - iso-8859-1 10y ago
      It has a history of being used pejoratively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license
      - AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
        Many terms do. Socialists and communists still call themselves those terms despite McCarthyism and the red scare, the term queer is still used despite the fact that it was used as an insult for a very long time, the n-word's reappropriation despite its horrible history, and too many other examples for me to list. Perhaps it's time for the FSF and its ilk to wear 'viral' as a badge of honor, instead of playing the semantics game.
- belorn 10y ago
  If you want to combine viral open-source code with toxic proprietary code, sure. Proprietary code is toxic by nature, so why should we not use that term? > I didn't read an ounce of contempt I disagree. Calling a grant of permissions "restrictive", or calling it "viral" has as much contempt as calling a offering of proprietary licensed software toxic. Its insult flinging, plain and simple.
  - mrunkel 10y ago
    I'm not sure I want to wade into this religious war, but you can surely agree that the GPL is more restrictive (as in, it adds restrictions) than say the BSD or MIT licenses.
    - belorn 10y ago
      When you rent a hotel room you get permission to enter and sleep there, but are also restricted to not destroy the room. However the restriction already existed before you paid, so the change between the owner and you only exist in added permission. No one is allowed to destroy property of someone else so those restrictions are not additional part of the transaction. GPL do not add restrictions. It is purely permissions given over what already exist. In theory one could rewrite the GPL license text to be lines of "I grant you permission to do X", and it would still have the same effect.
      - E6300 10y ago
        So, to bridge the analogy, what would be the "before paying" state of a GPL'd work? The GPL does not, to my knowledge, clearly define this, and there's disagreement among the experts.
        TuringTest 10y ago
        > what would be the "before paying" state of a GPL'd work Whatever the law is for copyrighted but unlicensed code.
- notalaser 10y ago
  > One person involved with the Linux Foundation ...there are a lot of people involved with the Linux Foundation, what didn't help in this case is that the one person involved with the Linux Foundation who came up with this piece of Ballmer-era nostalgia is the Linux Foundation's Senior Director of Open Source Consulting. It's a pretty major PR blunder. It rubs people the wrong way because it basically repeats the anti-Linux arguments which used to be promoted by a lot of companies that were heavily-invested in proprietary software -- some of which are Linux Foundation members today. The terms aren't exactly innovative. 20 years ago or so they were used liberally (and, I think, coined) by a particularly disliked company from Redmond, and their marketing material (thinly-veiled as whitepapers, sometimes from partner companies) read pretty much like this guy's piece. This is basically a blast from the past, except 20 years ago we'd see it on Microsoft's website under some Get the Facts stamp, not on the Linux Foundation's website.
  - AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
    I apologize for the late reply, I have been out of state making a pitch, and enjoying the scenery after it was accepted. I can see your viewpoint. I do remember the anti-linux Microsoft days, and I did not enjoy them as a company back then. However, I do think viral is an apt description of the license, despite the objections in this thread. As I mentioned before I left, I think viral is a good description of GPL. Viral is a feature, not a consequence. If you choose GPL, it's because you want that viral nature. If you're a company, you'll have to weigh that license against your business concerns. Zealots may say something like "every piece of code should be open source in all circumstances", but pragmatists will realize that some code just doesn't make sense as open source, and making all derivatives of that open source. So, long story short, someone who is in charge of open source consulting should understand better than anyone else that the GPL isn't appropriate for all companies. If the changed code is patented, GPL isn't appropriate in any circumstance, like it or not.
- pekk 10y ago
  If you're going to say that the GPL is viral because it applies to derivative works, then almost any license is viral because the license of any work follows it around. That is the nature of licenses. Anyone who expects to copy-paste other people's code into their own code and change the license is just fighting the legal system. You're still going to have to follow the terms of the license, whether that means sharing changes or including attributions.
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    The problem is that the GPL considers adding a single GPL method to a large non-GPL project as being a derivative work of the GPL method. Moreover, it considers the interactions between the method and other code a derivative of the GPL, even if only the implementation was under GPL but the header/API was provided under a more liberal licence.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      No. Copyright makes adding a single method to a large project a derivative work of the method.
- davexunit 10y ago
  Using the term "viral" is a pejorative term used explicitly to make the GPL seem dangerous. It's propaganda by the anti-copyleft crowd. Asking a representative of a foundation that represents the most important copylefted software project in history to stop using anti-copyleft propaganda terms isn't asking them to "sugar coat" their words.
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    Nonsense. It is an adjective that correctly describes the behaviour. If you want a non-viral GPL, then use the MPL2. It is exactly like the GPL, except it has a file-level firewall so that other files that it interacts with don't need to have the same licence, something the GPL is intolerant of. In every other sense the MPL2 provides all the protections the GPL does, it just doesn't consume the rest of the project you integrate it with.
    - davexunit 10y ago
      It DOESN'T "consume" the rest of your project. Your code does not have to use the GPL as its license!
      - snovv_crash 10y ago
        Unless the GPL code matches the Compiler or OS exceptions, yes, you do have to relicense as GPL. This is what GPL detractors refer to when they use the word "viral".
        davexunit 10y ago
        You don't have to relicense your code as GPL. You are confusing the copyright applied to your own code vs. distribution of the whole program.
        snovv_crash 10y ago
        Technically you are correct, and I guess that's the best kind of correct. However the GPL does apply to non-GPL code in the case of distribution, which is what I was referring to. Perhaps with the advent of cloud computing and fast networks the more sticky problems of GPL code in proprietary systems become less of an issue. That said, I've already seen an uptick in AGPL code in some of the fields I'm interested in.
duck2 10y ago
The tone of the article is very disturbing. I would think not supporting the GPL is a deadly sin if I did not know about open source licenses. Furthermore, as it is mentioned, one person's article does not automatically determine the foundation's stance, especially if they "quietly removed" it. Are there FSF snipers waiting around for anyone pointing out that their license is viral and restrictive?
- Millennium 10y ago
  I don't think anybody disputes that the GPL is viral and restrictive. The debate is about whether or not that's a bad thing.
  - TuringTest 10y ago
    Or maybe we disagree with using those particular terms, because of their negative connotations, even though we agree that the effect that they describe exist.
  - wiz21c 10y ago
    The GPL is a political statement, i.e. a matter of opinion and choice. Moreover, it didn't kill anybody so far, so it's not exactly questionable on that side. Therefore, it can't be good or bad. The question is simply does one agree with it or not...
  - davexunit 10y ago
    I dispute both of those things. The GPL is neither viral nor restrictive.
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      The code might be Free™, but the developers who want to use it are very much restricted in what they can use the code for. I guess it depends on if you think code, like corporations, should have personhood.
      - 10y ago
Stranger43 10y ago
I really wish the GNU folks would stop playing committee politics every chance they get, but then again thats what you get when an organization loosing all of it's real world power despite being on the winning side of an argument.
- wiz21c 10y ago
  >> an organization loosing all of it's real world power Could you elaborate on that ?
  - Stranger43 10y ago
    30 years ago the FSF was the dominant organization in an obscure open source movement, today they are a footnote in the history of an successful open source movement that have gone completely mainstream. This process have left FSF without the resources to do anything but create drama inside the open source movement and predictably they have become the PETA of OpenSource concerned more with proving their own purity and commitment then anything else.
    - wiz21c 10y ago
      I'd say they prove their purity because that's what distinguishes them from the rest. Now, if you talk in terms of projects successfully backed/run by the FSF, you may be right, there are not as popular as they were. But as guardians of the GPL ethos/politics, I'd say they do a good job (considering that this ethos hardly translates to money)
jlgaddis 10y ago
I don't know enough about this to take sides but I do think that the author of this piece is being a bit misleading on at least one point. This piece says: > ... Greg Olson [referred] to the GPL and other copyleft licenses as “Restrictive Licenses” and “viral.” The original article, which he then quoted, reads: > These licenses are often termed ‘viral’ because ... So, while Mr. Olson did use the term "viral" in his piece, he didn't specifically call them "viral". Instead, he said, quite literally, that "these licenses are often termed 'viral'" (and they are). Anyways, the open source world has been having this argument forever -- often in the form of whether the BSD v. GPL is more "free" -- and it all depends on whose point of view you're looking at it from (the developer's or the user's).
- TuringTest 10y ago
  > it all depends on whose point of view you're looking at it from (the developer's or the user's). Myself, I like to see it with respect to what is protected by the license in terms of freedom. - "Permissive" licenses (BSD-like) protect a single snapshot of the code, as it exists the day it is released. That version can be used freely by anyone, but the possibility to impose additional restrictions means that you won't necessarily be free to use the versions derived from that snapshot. - "Protective" licenses (i.e. Copyleft) protect the whole project in the long term, whether it is the snapshot released under the license or any later modification of it. You are guaranteed access to any version that someone releases of that code, under the same terms that give you the freedom to use code.
  - Borealid 10y ago
    There's a dichotomy here. What you term "protective" here (GPL-style copyleft licenses) actually impose a greater number of restrictions on the person who obtains code under them: specifically, they lose the ability to distribute modified versions under a different license. So while one could argue that they are "protective" because they protect the rights of future users, one could also argue they are "restrictive" because they remove the right to add restrictions - which is, itself, a right! BSD-style licenses give a greater number of freedoms to the user who initially receives the software than GPL-style licenses. This has been used to argue that they are overly free, and used to argue that they are insufficiently free. But I think it's important to point out that there's a valid point of view in which "the ability to prevent someone else from doing something with my work as I choose" is considered a freedom that some licenses take away.
linuxkerneldev 10y ago
I'm no LF fanboy, but the tone of this article doesn't really help any cause. I think the key question would be to ask what percentage of the funds LF receives are effectively used for FOSS purposes. If it turns out some of those funds are being wasted on having FOSS conferences in exotic places, followed by karaoke in Seoul with "Linux partners" then it'd be good to expose things like that. A cursory observation indicates most of LF's management aren't coders so that makes me worry whether this is a management-heavy "charity".
tony 10y ago
The argument from the permissive licensing side: The reason some programmers hold GPL in contempt isn't due to picking a sports team. It's really annoying to have to explain to a true believer (of GPL) that it potentially taints codebases it mixes with. It's also a license that's complex and hasn't been tested in across jurisdictions. So arguing about what happens on a message board isn't fruitful since there is no case law. You may be recommended to "see a lawyer". I've spoken to a few people who have, ultimately the lawyer throws their hands in the air and say we don't have answers to the "What if's"; there isn't case law. And at that, the consensus of a random person on the internet isn't going to hold weight if you're accused of violating the terms of the license. It's hard to pick GPL on the merits. Permissively licensed projects don't seem to be having reciprocity issues. Can't remember the last time I heard these thriving BSD, MIT, Apache2, ISC licensed projects complaining about freeloaders. By the way, really happy Nintendo Switch picked up FreeBSD recently. Looking forward to upstream patches, even knowing it's entirely voluntary for them to give back. Why? Because the potential reciprocity from a big player is better than having a license that obligates reciprocity strictly, even punitively. Which could cause them to look elsewhere, to a proprietary solution. No entity wants to risk their hard work to become a derivative of a smaller project they pull in.
- CJefferson 10y ago
  Yes, the GPL doesn't play friendly with anything -- even itself (GPL2 vs GPL3). I have several developer friends who, reasonably, didn't want to make a GPLv2 project "or later versions", as they didn't know what those later versions would be, the FSF could produce almost anything. Now we can't link to GPL3 code.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    >I have several developer friends who, reasonably, didn't want to make a GPLv2 project "or later versions", as they didn't know what those later versions would be, the FSF could produce almost anything. The GPL license text explicitly addresses this concern. The FSF cannot make a GPLv4 that removes one of the 4 freedoms, for example.
unlmtd 10y ago
The GPL and openness are incompatible.
nolemurs 10y ago
FOSS != GPL. Saying the linux foundation is "[n]ot a Friend of Desktop Linux, the GPL, or Openness" because they published a piece that is negative about the GPL is sensationalist and absurd. There's a legitimate debate to be had about copyleft vs. less restrictive licenses, but articles like this aren't helping matters for GPL - all they do is strengthen the image of copyleft advocates as being extremists who are detached from reality.
cwmma 10y ago
I'd note that the Linux foundation is in charge of more then just Linux, and some of the other projects (i.e. Node.js or RethinkDB) use permissive licenses.
red023 10y ago
I think it sad that so many people are to hostile toward the GPL and the FSF, especially GPLv3 my license of choice. I love the GPLv3 because it ensures user freedom all the way and I think people who claim that is not "open" because of that totally miss the point. It makes sure the software stays open for the users. But of course the big companies who want to close down their stuff, abuse open source to use in in their proprietary stuff they make just for profit maximization (debatable if this even makes a difference) I see all the red Flags and I am totally with the articles author on this one. I mean Microsoft is part of the Linux foundation and all this huge companies. They are in there to push their agenda and its obviously not freedom and transparency for the user. I think its sad how many people here in the comment section are really fail to see it or intentionally side with this cooperations because they are somehow involved and actually put themselves over the users freedoms. I wish Richard Stallman would be the same person as Linus Torvalds. I wish Linux would switch over to GPLv3 and a Linux Foundation would be headed by organizations like the EFF, FSF ... not some corrupt cooperations that are up to corrupting this great thing. I think people should really learn to read between the lines, the signs are clear this is not good. Why would M$ have any interest in Linux or the desktop? Even the companies who use Linux heavy in their servers have actually years of investment into their software for the users that is often still only windows and macOS so why would they want to maintain/rewrite their stuff for Linux desktops? They care about their server farms not about how free their users are. When big money is involved chances are that its not used for good but rather to gatekeep, protect and maximize.
jordigh 10y ago
My, how the tides have changed. Those of us old enough to remember, the landscape looked a lot different 15 years ago. There was optimism, there was a desire to install Linux on everything possible, and the GPL was the default license for most new free software that was getting written. It was not without strife. Since 1998, people like esr have been saying how the GPL is passé and is no longer needed because open source won, because open source was superior, because companies would naturally want to share their source code. Nobody needed anymore to be coerced into respecting user freedoms. Then the corporations started to take note and through their clout, they have convinced their employees that nothing is worse than keeping code free. Only unimportant scraps of code can be free, but the real code must remain secret, restricted, proprietary. AGPL is the ultimate evil to be avoided at all costs. I don't like this shift. I miss the Slashdot days. I miss the jokes about installing Linux on dead badgers. I wish we had a collective desire to do something about the most widely deployed proprietary software controlling our lives in the pocket computers so many of us carry around with us. We haven't won. The code is locked up, the spying is worse than ever, and the corporations are winning. They even influence the direction of Linux, actively trying to subvert GPL compliance efforts such as the VMWare GPL lawsuit by pulling Conservancy's funding. The GPL is a much-needed defence. Software controls ever more things of the internet. We need to bring back the rebellious attitude of the late 90s and early 00s. Linux needs to be installed on all of your phone, down to the radio firmware (and the dead badger).
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Let me just take one point: Only unimportant scraps of code can be free, but the real code must remain secret, restricted, proprietary. Clearly Microsoft missed this as they are open sourcing most (all?) of .Net?
  - zer0tonin 10y ago
    Yeah, the real thing is "The only code that must remain secret is one that concerns the business logic". Ie. Facebook has open sourced React, Cassandra, HHVM... but they will never open source the code that powers the newsfeed or the friend list.
ckastner 10y ago
Here's the full quote by Greg Olson that was supposedly so offensive: The most permissive licenses present little risk and few compliance requirements. These licenses include BSD and MIT, and others, that have minimal requirements, all the way to Apache and the Eclipse Public License, which are more elaborate in addressing contributions, patents, and indemnification. In the middle of the spectrum are the so-called ‘weak viral licenses’ which require sharing source code to any changes made to the originally licensed code, but not sharing of other source code linked or otherwise bound to the original open source code in question. The most popular and frequently encountered licenses in this category are the Mozilla Public License and the Common Public Attribution License. Restrictive Licenses present the most legal risk and complexity for companies that re-distribute or distribute software. These licenses are often termed ‘viral’ because software combined and distributed with this licensed software must be provided in source code format under the terms of those licenses. These requirements present serious risks to the preservation of proprietary software rights. The GNU General Public License is the archetype of this category, and is, in fact, the most widely used open source license in the world. It is beyond me how this analysis, which appears to be as objective as can possibly be, can be taken as an insult at all, let alone lead one to conclude that the " Linux Foundation has no respect for FOSS".
- rbanffy 10y ago
  Perhaps some people think "the preservation of proprietary software rights" is a good thing. I have pointed out numerous times the only restriction the GPL imposes on developers is on the "right" to deny others the freedoms the developer enjoys.
  - jimktrains2 10y ago
    Exactly, the GPL focuses on the rights of the user, not the rights of the developer.
    - bbatha 10y ago
      Those rights mean nothing if the user is not someone versed enough to modify the code. So in practice the rights are the rights of the developer.
kstenerud 10y ago
And here we go with the politics again. It's GPL vs all the other open source licenses. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it always will be. Those who think it'll stifle innovation by locking up novelty in proprietary code will chose GPL. Those who think it'll stifle innovation by holding back adoption in the free market will chose one of the others. And the two will NEVER meet. This is a religious war, and neither side will concede even an inch. Meanwhile, the world goes on, people make things and money, and virtually nobody gives a shit about your arguments.
leecarraher 10y ago
I've always used licensing for indemnity and nothing more. Copyright enforcement is a pretty costly pursuit, and it's fairly unlikely anything that we develop would be worth that litigation, and the assumption that at no point we ourselves were not culprit of some other infringements allowing for counter-suit. so for just not being held responsible if someone uses something of ours that blows up in their face (possibly literally) I just stick with good old bsd.
known 10y ago
Follow the money; You'll know the truth;
pnathan 10y ago
Corporations want to include code other people wrote, for free, and without any legal obligations or liability. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
- jdanisek 10y ago
  Not true - they wouldn't contribute if they thought everyone else would just take their code and not put something back themselves... that's why the GPL works!
jdanisek 10y ago
This article is an insane rant. She didn't even spell the ED's name right - it's Zemlin. Did the author even ask the LF for a statement?
squarefoot 10y ago
What if Microsoft was secretly working on the next Windows incarnation as a proprietary GUI on top of a Unix like kernel much like as Google did with Android and to a lesser extent Apple did with MacOS? This way they could profit from the work of the community (device drivers, low level security etc) lowering their development and maintenance costs. Being a big player in the Linux Foundation it could then make sense if they and others acted against any support of OSS Linux on the desktop.

158 points by zulrah 10y ago

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. One person involved with the Linux Foundation wrote an article that used some terms this author and some others didn't like, and after some outcry the Linux Foundation removed it. Somehow this makes the entire organization a non-friend of Desktop Linux and the GPL? It's just such a massive leap of logic. The GPL is in the most restrictive class of open-source licenses for companies, and it is viral by nature. Should those terms be sugar-coated? I didn't read an ounce of contempt in the quoted section.

Jonnax 10y ago
Well to be fair to the author the writer of the article has the job title: Sr. Director Open Source Consulting Services And they're posting on the Linux Foundation's site so that's a bit more than just some random person writing an article for the site. Also the term "viral" comes off as an insult to the licence, I think the term GNU Public Virus used to be a common descriptor. I think that's why the term Copyleft was introduced.
- AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
  I don't see 'viral' as an insult, I see it as a feature. I'm certainly pro-GPL, but I don't use it in too many of my projects. When I do use it, it's because I want that viral nature. When I don't, it's because I want people to have the freedom to modify it on their terms. However, pretending that every project should be licensed under copyleft licenses or that there's no room for criticism of the GPL smacks of zealotry. As for the author, I don't have the full article, but he isn't listed on the 'Board Member', 'Leadership', or 'Technical Advisory Board' sections on the Linux Foundation webpage. Everyone there seems to have pretty damn fancy titles. I have no idea of his actual position in the hierarchy.
  - iso-8859-1 10y ago
    It has a history of being used pejoratively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license
    - AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
      Many terms do. Socialists and communists still call themselves those terms despite McCarthyism and the red scare, the term queer is still used despite the fact that it was used as an insult for a very long time, the n-word's reappropriation despite its horrible history, and too many other examples for me to list. Perhaps it's time for the FSF and its ilk to wear 'viral' as a badge of honor, instead of playing the semantics game.
belorn 10y ago
If you want to combine viral open-source code with toxic proprietary code, sure. Proprietary code is toxic by nature, so why should we not use that term? > I didn't read an ounce of contempt I disagree. Calling a grant of permissions "restrictive", or calling it "viral" has as much contempt as calling a offering of proprietary licensed software toxic. Its insult flinging, plain and simple.
- mrunkel 10y ago
  I'm not sure I want to wade into this religious war, but you can surely agree that the GPL is more restrictive (as in, it adds restrictions) than say the BSD or MIT licenses.
  - belorn 10y ago
    When you rent a hotel room you get permission to enter and sleep there, but are also restricted to not destroy the room. However the restriction already existed before you paid, so the change between the owner and you only exist in added permission. No one is allowed to destroy property of someone else so those restrictions are not additional part of the transaction. GPL do not add restrictions. It is purely permissions given over what already exist. In theory one could rewrite the GPL license text to be lines of "I grant you permission to do X", and it would still have the same effect.
    - E6300 10y ago
      So, to bridge the analogy, what would be the "before paying" state of a GPL'd work? The GPL does not, to my knowledge, clearly define this, and there's disagreement among the experts.
      - TuringTest 10y ago
        > what would be the "before paying" state of a GPL'd work Whatever the law is for copyrighted but unlicensed code.
notalaser 10y ago
> One person involved with the Linux Foundation ...there are a lot of people involved with the Linux Foundation, what didn't help in this case is that the one person involved with the Linux Foundation who came up with this piece of Ballmer-era nostalgia is the Linux Foundation's Senior Director of Open Source Consulting. It's a pretty major PR blunder. It rubs people the wrong way because it basically repeats the anti-Linux arguments which used to be promoted by a lot of companies that were heavily-invested in proprietary software -- some of which are Linux Foundation members today. The terms aren't exactly innovative. 20 years ago or so they were used liberally (and, I think, coined) by a particularly disliked company from Redmond, and their marketing material (thinly-veiled as whitepapers, sometimes from partner companies) read pretty much like this guy's piece. This is basically a blast from the past, except 20 years ago we'd see it on Microsoft's website under some Get the Facts stamp, not on the Linux Foundation's website.
- AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
  I apologize for the late reply, I have been out of state making a pitch, and enjoying the scenery after it was accepted. I can see your viewpoint. I do remember the anti-linux Microsoft days, and I did not enjoy them as a company back then. However, I do think viral is an apt description of the license, despite the objections in this thread. As I mentioned before I left, I think viral is a good description of GPL. Viral is a feature, not a consequence. If you choose GPL, it's because you want that viral nature. If you're a company, you'll have to weigh that license against your business concerns. Zealots may say something like "every piece of code should be open source in all circumstances", but pragmatists will realize that some code just doesn't make sense as open source, and making all derivatives of that open source. So, long story short, someone who is in charge of open source consulting should understand better than anyone else that the GPL isn't appropriate for all companies. If the changed code is patented, GPL isn't appropriate in any circumstance, like it or not.
pekk 10y ago
If you're going to say that the GPL is viral because it applies to derivative works, then almost any license is viral because the license of any work follows it around. That is the nature of licenses. Anyone who expects to copy-paste other people's code into their own code and change the license is just fighting the legal system. You're still going to have to follow the terms of the license, whether that means sharing changes or including attributions.
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  The problem is that the GPL considers adding a single GPL method to a large non-GPL project as being a derivative work of the GPL method. Moreover, it considers the interactions between the method and other code a derivative of the GPL, even if only the implementation was under GPL but the header/API was provided under a more liberal licence.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    No. Copyright makes adding a single method to a large project a derivative work of the method.
davexunit 10y ago
Using the term "viral" is a pejorative term used explicitly to make the GPL seem dangerous. It's propaganda by the anti-copyleft crowd. Asking a representative of a foundation that represents the most important copylefted software project in history to stop using anti-copyleft propaganda terms isn't asking them to "sugar coat" their words.
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  Nonsense. It is an adjective that correctly describes the behaviour. If you want a non-viral GPL, then use the MPL2. It is exactly like the GPL, except it has a file-level firewall so that other files that it interacts with don't need to have the same licence, something the GPL is intolerant of. In every other sense the MPL2 provides all the protections the GPL does, it just doesn't consume the rest of the project you integrate it with.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    It DOESN'T "consume" the rest of your project. Your code does not have to use the GPL as its license!
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      Unless the GPL code matches the Compiler or OS exceptions, yes, you do have to relicense as GPL. This is what GPL detractors refer to when they use the word "viral".
      - davexunit 10y ago
        You don't have to relicense your code as GPL. You are confusing the copyright applied to your own code vs. distribution of the whole program.
        snovv_crash 10y ago
        Technically you are correct, and I guess that's the best kind of correct. However the GPL does apply to non-GPL code in the case of distribution, which is what I was referring to. Perhaps with the advent of cloud computing and fast networks the more sticky problems of GPL code in proprietary systems become less of an issue. That said, I've already seen an uptick in AGPL code in some of the fields I'm interested in.

duck2 10y ago

The tone of the article is very disturbing. I would think not supporting the GPL is a deadly sin if I did not know about open source licenses. Furthermore, as it is mentioned, one person's article does not automatically determine the foundation's stance, especially if they "quietly removed" it. Are there FSF snipers waiting around for anyone pointing out that their license is viral and restrictive?

Millennium 10y ago
I don't think anybody disputes that the GPL is viral and restrictive. The debate is about whether or not that's a bad thing.
- TuringTest 10y ago
  Or maybe we disagree with using those particular terms, because of their negative connotations, even though we agree that the effect that they describe exist.
- wiz21c 10y ago
  The GPL is a political statement, i.e. a matter of opinion and choice. Moreover, it didn't kill anybody so far, so it's not exactly questionable on that side. Therefore, it can't be good or bad. The question is simply does one agree with it or not...
- davexunit 10y ago
  I dispute both of those things. The GPL is neither viral nor restrictive.
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    The code might be Free™, but the developers who want to use it are very much restricted in what they can use the code for. I guess it depends on if you think code, like corporations, should have personhood.
    - 10y ago

Stranger43 10y ago

I really wish the GNU folks would stop playing committee politics every chance they get, but then again thats what you get when an organization loosing all of it's real world power despite being on the winning side of an argument.

wiz21c 10y ago
>> an organization loosing all of it's real world power Could you elaborate on that ?
- Stranger43 10y ago
  30 years ago the FSF was the dominant organization in an obscure open source movement, today they are a footnote in the history of an successful open source movement that have gone completely mainstream. This process have left FSF without the resources to do anything but create drama inside the open source movement and predictably they have become the PETA of OpenSource concerned more with proving their own purity and commitment then anything else.
  - wiz21c 10y ago
    I'd say they prove their purity because that's what distinguishes them from the rest. Now, if you talk in terms of projects successfully backed/run by the FSF, you may be right, there are not as popular as they were. But as guardians of the GPL ethos/politics, I'd say they do a good job (considering that this ethos hardly translates to money)

jlgaddis 10y ago

I don't know enough about this to take sides but I do think that the author of this piece is being a bit misleading on at least one point. This piece says: > ... Greg Olson [referred] to the GPL and other copyleft licenses as “Restrictive Licenses” and “viral.” The original article, which he then quoted, reads: > These licenses are often termed ‘viral’ because ... So, while Mr. Olson did use the term "viral" in his piece, he didn't specifically call them "viral". Instead, he said, quite literally, that "these licenses are often termed 'viral'" (and they are). Anyways, the open source world has been having this argument forever -- often in the form of whether the BSD v. GPL is more "free" -- and it all depends on whose point of view you're looking at it from (the developer's or the user's).

TuringTest 10y ago
> it all depends on whose point of view you're looking at it from (the developer's or the user's). Myself, I like to see it with respect to what is protected by the license in terms of freedom. - "Permissive" licenses (BSD-like) protect a single snapshot of the code, as it exists the day it is released. That version can be used freely by anyone, but the possibility to impose additional restrictions means that you won't necessarily be free to use the versions derived from that snapshot. - "Protective" licenses (i.e. Copyleft) protect the whole project in the long term, whether it is the snapshot released under the license or any later modification of it. You are guaranteed access to any version that someone releases of that code, under the same terms that give you the freedom to use code.
- Borealid 10y ago
  There's a dichotomy here. What you term "protective" here (GPL-style copyleft licenses) actually impose a greater number of restrictions on the person who obtains code under them: specifically, they lose the ability to distribute modified versions under a different license. So while one could argue that they are "protective" because they protect the rights of future users, one could also argue they are "restrictive" because they remove the right to add restrictions - which is, itself, a right! BSD-style licenses give a greater number of freedoms to the user who initially receives the software than GPL-style licenses. This has been used to argue that they are overly free, and used to argue that they are insufficiently free. But I think it's important to point out that there's a valid point of view in which "the ability to prevent someone else from doing something with my work as I choose" is considered a freedom that some licenses take away.

linuxkerneldev 10y ago

I'm no LF fanboy, but the tone of this article doesn't really help any cause. I think the key question would be to ask what percentage of the funds LF receives are effectively used for FOSS purposes. If it turns out some of those funds are being wasted on having FOSS conferences in exotic places, followed by karaoke in Seoul with "Linux partners" then it'd be good to expose things like that. A cursory observation indicates most of LF's management aren't coders so that makes me worry whether this is a management-heavy "charity".

tony 10y ago

The argument from the permissive licensing side: The reason some programmers hold GPL in contempt isn't due to picking a sports team. It's really annoying to have to explain to a true believer (of GPL) that it potentially taints codebases it mixes with. It's also a license that's complex and hasn't been tested in across jurisdictions. So arguing about what happens on a message board isn't fruitful since there is no case law. You may be recommended to "see a lawyer". I've spoken to a few people who have, ultimately the lawyer throws their hands in the air and say we don't have answers to the "What if's"; there isn't case law. And at that, the consensus of a random person on the internet isn't going to hold weight if you're accused of violating the terms of the license. It's hard to pick GPL on the merits. Permissively licensed projects don't seem to be having reciprocity issues. Can't remember the last time I heard these thriving BSD, MIT, Apache2, ISC licensed projects complaining about freeloaders. By the way, really happy Nintendo Switch picked up FreeBSD recently. Looking forward to upstream patches, even knowing it's entirely voluntary for them to give back. Why? Because the potential reciprocity from a big player is better than having a license that obligates reciprocity strictly, even punitively. Which could cause them to look elsewhere, to a proprietary solution. No entity wants to risk their hard work to become a derivative of a smaller project they pull in.

CJefferson 10y ago
Yes, the GPL doesn't play friendly with anything -- even itself (GPL2 vs GPL3). I have several developer friends who, reasonably, didn't want to make a GPLv2 project "or later versions", as they didn't know what those later versions would be, the FSF could produce almost anything. Now we can't link to GPL3 code.
- davexunit 10y ago
  >I have several developer friends who, reasonably, didn't want to make a GPLv2 project "or later versions", as they didn't know what those later versions would be, the FSF could produce almost anything. The GPL license text explicitly addresses this concern. The FSF cannot make a GPLv4 that removes one of the 4 freedoms, for example.

unlmtd 10y ago

The GPL and openness are incompatible.

nolemurs 10y ago

FOSS != GPL. Saying the linux foundation is "[n]ot a Friend of Desktop Linux, the GPL, or Openness" because they published a piece that is negative about the GPL is sensationalist and absurd. There's a legitimate debate to be had about copyleft vs. less restrictive licenses, but articles like this aren't helping matters for GPL - all they do is strengthen the image of copyleft advocates as being extremists who are detached from reality.

cwmma 10y ago

I'd note that the Linux foundation is in charge of more then just Linux, and some of the other projects (i.e. Node.js or RethinkDB) use permissive licenses.

red023 10y ago

I think it sad that so many people are to hostile toward the GPL and the FSF, especially GPLv3 my license of choice. I love the GPLv3 because it ensures user freedom all the way and I think people who claim that is not "open" because of that totally miss the point. It makes sure the software stays open for the users. But of course the big companies who want to close down their stuff, abuse open source to use in in their proprietary stuff they make just for profit maximization (debatable if this even makes a difference) I see all the red Flags and I am totally with the articles author on this one. I mean Microsoft is part of the Linux foundation and all this huge companies. They are in there to push their agenda and its obviously not freedom and transparency for the user. I think its sad how many people here in the comment section are really fail to see it or intentionally side with this cooperations because they are somehow involved and actually put themselves over the users freedoms. I wish Richard Stallman would be the same person as Linus Torvalds. I wish Linux would switch over to GPLv3 and a Linux Foundation would be headed by organizations like the EFF, FSF ... not some corrupt cooperations that are up to corrupting this great thing. I think people should really learn to read between the lines, the signs are clear this is not good. Why would M$ have any interest in Linux or the desktop? Even the companies who use Linux heavy in their servers have actually years of investment into their software for the users that is often still only windows and macOS so why would they want to maintain/rewrite their stuff for Linux desktops? They care about their server farms not about how free their users are. When big money is involved chances are that its not used for good but rather to gatekeep, protect and maximize.

jordigh 10y ago

My, how the tides have changed. Those of us old enough to remember, the landscape looked a lot different 15 years ago. There was optimism, there was a desire to install Linux on everything possible, and the GPL was the default license for most new free software that was getting written. It was not without strife. Since 1998, people like esr have been saying how the GPL is passé and is no longer needed because open source won, because open source was superior, because companies would naturally want to share their source code. Nobody needed anymore to be coerced into respecting user freedoms. Then the corporations started to take note and through their clout, they have convinced their employees that nothing is worse than keeping code free. Only unimportant scraps of code can be free, but the real code must remain secret, restricted, proprietary. AGPL is the ultimate evil to be avoided at all costs. I don't like this shift. I miss the Slashdot days. I miss the jokes about installing Linux on dead badgers. I wish we had a collective desire to do something about the most widely deployed proprietary software controlling our lives in the pocket computers so many of us carry around with us. We haven't won. The code is locked up, the spying is worse than ever, and the corporations are winning. They even influence the direction of Linux, actively trying to subvert GPL compliance efforts such as the VMWare GPL lawsuit by pulling Conservancy's funding. The GPL is a much-needed defence. Software controls ever more things of the internet. We need to bring back the rebellious attitude of the late 90s and early 00s. Linux needs to be installed on all of your phone, down to the radio firmware (and the dead badger).

reitanqild 10y ago
Let me just take one point: Only unimportant scraps of code can be free, but the real code must remain secret, restricted, proprietary. Clearly Microsoft missed this as they are open sourcing most (all?) of .Net?
- zer0tonin 10y ago
  Yeah, the real thing is "The only code that must remain secret is one that concerns the business logic". Ie. Facebook has open sourced React, Cassandra, HHVM... but they will never open source the code that powers the newsfeed or the friend list.

ckastner 10y ago

Here's the full quote by Greg Olson that was supposedly so offensive: The most permissive licenses present little risk and few compliance requirements. These licenses include BSD and MIT, and others, that have minimal requirements, all the way to Apache and the Eclipse Public License, which are more elaborate in addressing contributions, patents, and indemnification. In the middle of the spectrum are the so-called ‘weak viral licenses’ which require sharing source code to any changes made to the originally licensed code, but not sharing of other source code linked or otherwise bound to the original open source code in question. The most popular and frequently encountered licenses in this category are the Mozilla Public License and the Common Public Attribution License. Restrictive Licenses present the most legal risk and complexity for companies that re-distribute or distribute software. These licenses are often termed ‘viral’ because software combined and distributed with this licensed software must be provided in source code format under the terms of those licenses. These requirements present serious risks to the preservation of proprietary software rights. The GNU General Public License is the archetype of this category, and is, in fact, the most widely used open source license in the world. It is beyond me how this analysis, which appears to be as objective as can possibly be, can be taken as an insult at all, let alone lead one to conclude that the " Linux Foundation has no respect for FOSS".

rbanffy 10y ago
Perhaps some people think "the preservation of proprietary software rights" is a good thing. I have pointed out numerous times the only restriction the GPL imposes on developers is on the "right" to deny others the freedoms the developer enjoys.
- jimktrains2 10y ago
  Exactly, the GPL focuses on the rights of the user, not the rights of the developer.
  - bbatha 10y ago
    Those rights mean nothing if the user is not someone versed enough to modify the code. So in practice the rights are the rights of the developer.

kstenerud 10y ago

And here we go with the politics again. It's GPL vs all the other open source licenses. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it always will be. Those who think it'll stifle innovation by locking up novelty in proprietary code will chose GPL. Those who think it'll stifle innovation by holding back adoption in the free market will chose one of the others. And the two will NEVER meet. This is a religious war, and neither side will concede even an inch. Meanwhile, the world goes on, people make things and money, and virtually nobody gives a shit about your arguments.

leecarraher 10y ago

I've always used licensing for indemnity and nothing more. Copyright enforcement is a pretty costly pursuit, and it's fairly unlikely anything that we develop would be worth that litigation, and the assumption that at no point we ourselves were not culprit of some other infringements allowing for counter-suit. so for just not being held responsible if someone uses something of ours that blows up in their face (possibly literally) I just stick with good old bsd.

known 10y ago

Follow the money; You'll know the truth;

pnathan 10y ago

Corporations want to include code other people wrote, for free, and without any legal obligations or liability. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

jdanisek 10y ago
Not true - they wouldn't contribute if they thought everyone else would just take their code and not put something back themselves... that's why the GPL works!

jdanisek 10y ago

This article is an insane rant. She didn't even spell the ED's name right - it's Zemlin. Did the author even ask the LF for a statement?

squarefoot 10y ago

What if Microsoft was secretly working on the next Windows incarnation as a proprietary GUI on top of a Unix like kernel much like as Google did with Android and to a lesser extent Apple did with MacOS? This way they could profit from the work of the community (device drivers, low level security etc) lowering their development and maintenance costs. Being a big player in the Linux Foundation it could then make sense if they and others acted against any support of OSS Linux on the desktop.