3 ms·

> So don't link with GPL code, find a work-around, a different library or write your own code That's what I do. Hello MIT/BSD > Again GPL protects the user of

by ythn 10y ago

> So don't link with GPL code, find a work-around, a different library or write your own code That's what I do. Hello MIT/BSD > Again GPL protects the user of the code not the developers that want to remove the user freedom. Right, which is why I'm always surprised when people are upset that developers don't use GPL more

simion314 10y ago
The point is if you use BSD like licenses over GPL like then you do not care about user freedom and only care about developer freedom, so it is normal that people that care about free software and not open source are upset, especially when dirty tactics are used to hide the true meaning of free and freedom when using words like viral/tainting/restricting. You can use the license you want my only hope is that you don't miss represent user freedom vs developer freedom, that is all.
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
The answer is in "want to remove the user freedom". Those are often freeloader companies and the decision usually lies in management.
- simion314 10y ago
  I think some individual developers hate on GPL because they would like to use a library maybe add some things to it but don't want to respect the license.
cr0sh 10y ago
> That's what I do. Hello MIT/BSD But what if you write a library or something that becomes popular, very popular or very useful, and your users and others (maybe yourself) want to add a great feature, but it is something that is very difficult to do, or would require more than a single developer to do - in short, it would take a while to do, if possible at all... ...then company B comes along, sees how well you're doing, and says to themselves "you know, this would be great to have that market - and oh, look - the BSD license...perfect!" So they take your code, add in the changes the users are clamoring for (because they have the resources to do so), then make it all proprietary (perhaps - if you're lucky - with a message buried in 4pt font somewhere that say's a "thank you" and "copyright, etc" to your efforts, as required by the BSD license) - then they market the hell out of it to your users. Your users see it all - and the flock to it, leaving your efforts to wither and die. You won't be able to catch up, and those extra features they added will keep your old users happy. Perhaps they release an API to allow others to use it, but never the source code. They've now locked it up, and all your hard work is for nothing. But hey, you used the BSD license, and all's good, right? /...and this is why OSX is more popular than BSD...
- ythn 10y ago
  I agree that GPL is good for some things, but not every thing. Linux would probably not be as good as it is without GPL. On the other hand if I have to open up my entire product just because I want to use one utility function in a GPL'd library, heck no I'm not doing that. I'll gladly use GPL'd code with linking exceptions. It's only fair - if I improve the GPL'd code I have to release the improvements. But why should I have to release my entire unrelated code base? Seems unreasonable.
  - simion314 10y ago
    Exactly, slavery is bad for some(probably most people) but is good for the slave owners(until for some reasons the slave gets sold into slavery and he will change his mind). The point is GPL is always good for users and is bad for developers that want to control the users, I understand that you don't want to open your code because you need to make money to live but even if you are a developer that must write non free code you should understand that users not having the freedoms is bad and hope that we as a society can find a solution to this issue(say you have a goal for your software and when you reach your goal the source becomes GPL)
    - ythn 10y ago
      Just wondering if this philosophy extends to all aspects of life (not just software). For example, should restaurants make all of their dishes free as in freedom (providing a copy of the recipe?) Should all companies make all of their products free as in freedom?

by ythn 10y ago

simion314 10y ago

The point is if you use BSD like licenses over GPL like then you do not care about user freedom and only care about developer freedom, so it is normal that people that care about free software and not open source are upset, especially when dirty tactics are used to hide the true meaning of free and freedom when using words like viral/tainting/restricting. You can use the license you want my only hope is that you don't miss represent user freedom vs developer freedom, that is all.

eeZah7Ux 10y ago

The answer is in "want to remove the user freedom". Those are often freeloader companies and the decision usually lies in management.

simion314 10y ago
I think some individual developers hate on GPL because they would like to use a library maybe add some things to it but don't want to respect the license.

cr0sh 10y ago

> That's what I do. Hello MIT/BSD But what if you write a library or something that becomes popular, very popular or very useful, and your users and others (maybe yourself) want to add a great feature, but it is something that is very difficult to do, or would require more than a single developer to do - in short, it would take a while to do, if possible at all... ...then company B comes along, sees how well you're doing, and says to themselves "you know, this would be great to have that market - and oh, look - the BSD license...perfect!" So they take your code, add in the changes the users are clamoring for (because they have the resources to do so), then make it all proprietary (perhaps - if you're lucky - with a message buried in 4pt font somewhere that say's a "thank you" and "copyright, etc" to your efforts, as required by the BSD license) - then they market the hell out of it to your users. Your users see it all - and the flock to it, leaving your efforts to wither and die. You won't be able to catch up, and those extra features they added will keep your old users happy. Perhaps they release an API to allow others to use it, but never the source code. They've now locked it up, and all your hard work is for nothing. But hey, you used the BSD license, and all's good, right? /...and this is why OSX is more popular than BSD...

ythn 10y ago
I agree that GPL is good for some things, but not every thing. Linux would probably not be as good as it is without GPL. On the other hand if I have to open up my entire product just because I want to use one utility function in a GPL'd library, heck no I'm not doing that. I'll gladly use GPL'd code with linking exceptions. It's only fair - if I improve the GPL'd code I have to release the improvements. But why should I have to release my entire unrelated code base? Seems unreasonable.
- simion314 10y ago
  Exactly, slavery is bad for some(probably most people) but is good for the slave owners(until for some reasons the slave gets sold into slavery and he will change his mind). The point is GPL is always good for users and is bad for developers that want to control the users, I understand that you don't want to open your code because you need to make money to live but even if you are a developer that must write non free code you should understand that users not having the freedoms is bad and hope that we as a society can find a solution to this issue(say you have a goal for your software and when you reach your goal the source becomes GPL)
  - ythn 10y ago
    Just wondering if this philosophy extends to all aspects of life (not just software). For example, should restaurants make all of their dishes free as in freedom (providing a copy of the recipe?) Should all companies make all of their products free as in freedom?