5 ms·

> The reason some programmers hold GPL in contempt [....is] that it potentially taints codebases it mixes with. These programmers, for consistency, should hate

by _jal 10y ago

> The reason some programmers hold GPL in contempt [....is] that it potentially taints codebases it mixes with. These programmers, for consistency, should hate proprietary software even more, because it permits no mixing at all. And yet, they tend to be the ones writing it. People who use the GPL want an alternate ecosystem, away from that. Microsoft builds theirs, Oracle buys theirs, Google builds theirs; why should a band of programmers not organized under a brand name not have theirs? Bluntly, don't like the GPL? That's totally fine; go build your own ecosystem with whatever terms you like.

franciscop 10y ago
I am one of those programmers which even built a tool to avoid having a GPL dependency down the line[1] and I can assure you that I like proprietary software less than GPL. If three levels down the dependency chain a developer was sloppy enough to incorrectly use a GPL dependency and license their project as MIT, then the whole project would automatically become GPL. That is what @git-pull meant by taint (though I do not have a negative opinion about it so I avoid pejorative terms such as taint or virus). The reason is simple and I see it akin my opinion on religion: it's okay to have your own believes, but don't force them on others. While I believe that we should all be doing Open Source for the benefit of humanity, I also understand that there are many companies who do proprietary software for different reasons. And not everyone can afford to do work exclusively on open source. [1] https://github.com/franciscop/legally https://github.com/franciscop/legally
- jessaustin 10y ago
  How many times has that thrice-removed GPL dependency affected one of your projects? In those cases, did you give up? Did you remove the dependency? If so, how long did that take?
  - franciscop 10y ago
    Luckily no one has sued me (and I hope no one is planing to) so it hasn't really affected me AFAIK, but I try to follow the law/licenses. Also when I do some proprietary work for some company and I am the one picking up the dependencies I double-check this. In JS-world most libraries are MIT-licensed, so there was only a couple of times where I had to remove minor dependencies which didn't really affect me.
- _jal 10y ago
  It sounds to me like you're doing it right; I don't think we disagree. Don't know why you're trying to explain 'taint' to me - the 'viral' nature is of course the primary moving part in the GPL. I also fully understand that not everyone/thing can be GPL. I'm not religious about it. I've contributed to open source under several licenses, and to proprietary applications. But the fact remains, if you don't like the posted rules, don't play in the sandbox, just like any other license, even if you really like the toys. And really, asking people to comply with a license is nothing like attempting to force beliefs on people. It is asking them to follow a legal agreement. Or do you think I am endorsing Larry Ellison's political views because I'm covered by a licensing agreement with his firm?
  - franciscop 10y ago
    I see it akin to "if you want to be in this country you have to follow our religion". Some people will choose other countries, some people will convert to your religion, and some people will move and keep their religion in an illegal way. With GPL it is similar in the way that it doesn't matter the license that you want to use but you have to use GPL. You can sometimes just not use GPL, but other times your only real options are to be forced to change your project license or to break the rules (neither of which is good IMO). Of course you have to follow the rules for any license, but other licenses are more permisive in the way that you can use the software with whatever license you want.
    - _jal 10y ago
      > I see it akin to "if you want to be in this country you have to follow our religion". But that is every license, aside from a few experimental/performance art ones. If you want to use others' code, you have to go through the motions of code's license's religion. I find it noteworthy that people only use the word 'religious' about the GPL. Not Microsoft's terms, which are massively more restrictive and not the weird ones that actually do get slightly religious (Artistic License). Something about heathens and heretics, I guess.
      - franciscop 10y ago
daveguy 10y ago
> These programmers, for consistency, should hate proprietary software even more, because it permits no mixing at all. I think tainting is worse than not using at all. I don't have a problem using gpl software as a user, but if it is at all programmer oriented (library / API / etc) I avoid it like the plague. I license software I write for personal projects in BSD, but I don't start with restrictions. This was a known problem with GPL, and they the LGPL was supposed to address it. Pointing out obvious concerns of programmers considering GPL shouldn't give anyone the vapors. I consider GPL to be better than proprietary, because at least you can still see the code. Although it is just a slight step above proprietary in terms of restrictiveness.

by _jal 10y ago

franciscop 10y ago

I am one of those programmers which even built a tool to avoid having a GPL dependency down the line[1] and I can assure you that I like proprietary software less than GPL. If three levels down the dependency chain a developer was sloppy enough to incorrectly use a GPL dependency and license their project as MIT, then the whole project would automatically become GPL. That is what @git-pull meant by taint (though I do not have a negative opinion about it so I avoid pejorative terms such as taint or virus). The reason is simple and I see it akin my opinion on religion: it's okay to have your own believes, but don't force them on others. While I believe that we should all be doing Open Source for the benefit of humanity, I also understand that there are many companies who do proprietary software for different reasons. And not everyone can afford to do work exclusively on open source. [1] https://github.com/franciscop/legally https://github.com/franciscop/legally

jessaustin 10y ago
How many times has that thrice-removed GPL dependency affected one of your projects? In those cases, did you give up? Did you remove the dependency? If so, how long did that take?
- franciscop 10y ago
  Luckily no one has sued me (and I hope no one is planing to) so it hasn't really affected me AFAIK, but I try to follow the law/licenses. Also when I do some proprietary work for some company and I am the one picking up the dependencies I double-check this. In JS-world most libraries are MIT-licensed, so there was only a couple of times where I had to remove minor dependencies which didn't really affect me.
_jal 10y ago
It sounds to me like you're doing it right; I don't think we disagree. Don't know why you're trying to explain 'taint' to me - the 'viral' nature is of course the primary moving part in the GPL. I also fully understand that not everyone/thing can be GPL. I'm not religious about it. I've contributed to open source under several licenses, and to proprietary applications. But the fact remains, if you don't like the posted rules, don't play in the sandbox, just like any other license, even if you really like the toys. And really, asking people to comply with a license is nothing like attempting to force beliefs on people. It is asking them to follow a legal agreement. Or do you think I am endorsing Larry Ellison's political views because I'm covered by a licensing agreement with his firm?
- franciscop 10y ago
  I see it akin to "if you want to be in this country you have to follow our religion". Some people will choose other countries, some people will convert to your religion, and some people will move and keep their religion in an illegal way. With GPL it is similar in the way that it doesn't matter the license that you want to use but you have to use GPL. You can sometimes just not use GPL, but other times your only real options are to be forced to change your project license or to break the rules (neither of which is good IMO). Of course you have to follow the rules for any license, but other licenses are more permisive in the way that you can use the software with whatever license you want.
  - _jal 10y ago
    > I see it akin to "if you want to be in this country you have to follow our religion". But that is every license, aside from a few experimental/performance art ones. If you want to use others' code, you have to go through the motions of code's license's religion. I find it noteworthy that people only use the word 'religious' about the GPL. Not Microsoft's terms, which are massively more restrictive and not the weird ones that actually do get slightly religious (Artistic License). Something about heathens and heretics, I guess.
    - franciscop 10y ago

daveguy 10y ago

> These programmers, for consistency, should hate proprietary software even more, because it permits no mixing at all. I think tainting is worse than not using at all. I don't have a problem using gpl software as a user, but if it is at all programmer oriented (library / API / etc) I avoid it like the plague. I license software I write for personal projects in BSD, but I don't start with restrictions. This was a known problem with GPL, and they the LGPL was supposed to address it. Pointing out obvious concerns of programmers considering GPL shouldn't give anyone the vapors. I consider GPL to be better than proprietary, because at least you can still see the code. Although it is just a slight step above proprietary in terms of restrictiveness.