5 ms·

Then why is it not licensed under the GPL, like Linux?

by catern 9y ago

joshuamorton 9y ago
I'll ask a related question: Why license it under the GPL? What does Google gain? (and what do you gain)
- oconnor0 9y ago
  You gain the knowledge that a device running Fuchsia is running code that's publicly available.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Do you though? Google, as the liscenser is free to keep portions of fuschia under lock and key, so that's not really the case.
    - CountSessine 9y ago
      You're really not convincing me that Google's intentions are good. Not licensing under GPL is a clear signal that Google is prioritizing hardware partners' needs over their users. Just like Android.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        I'm not trying to, I just don't think that using GPL would make them any nobler, except in the eyes of GPL-fanatics.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    No, you actually don't. You gain knowledge that some of the code is maybe publicly available, just like linux. The rest, however, is often still kept secret, legally or not, and has been since time immemorial. You don't have to take my word for it though, go ask bradley kuhn if he thinks that vendors have a tendency to comply with the GPL for the kernel :)
    - catern 9y ago
      Consider what happens if you're wrong. What happens if the GPL actually is the reason why Linux has such wide open-source hardware support? Then say goodbye to hacking on Fuschia on your own hardware... I'm not willing to take that risk.
DannyBee 9y ago
The real answer is because the people involved believe the licenses they are using are even more free. IE they do not subscribe to the FSF's ideology. It's their software, so they get to choose. It's like arguing NetBSD should use the GPL license. As for why it generally doesn't make sense to use the GPL for this: Even the FSF doesn't think GPLv2 is the right license for linux? GPL'ing linux hasn't prevented any of the problems you mention, either in theory or in practice, so why do the same thing and hope for a different result? (If you've never read it, i suggest you go read the various threads where linus, etc explain that in practice, the only approach that works is carrot, not stick) It would be the same for Mozilla or anyone else who got popular enough with GPL software and had lots of vendors and OEMs who used their software. GPL'ing the kernel or not does not change that some people don't follow the rules. You can have them sign it in blood if you want. They'll just work around you or ignore you, as long as there is money to be made. Also, once you are big enough, cutting them off will just attract regulators. In practice, you will not get them to follow the rules by having a "war on gpl violators" any moreso than we have solved the US drug problem by having a "war on drugs". If you (or others here) dream is of an ecosystem where everyone is forced, under pain of death, to follow the GPL, it's pretty unrealistic. It's not what happens now, it will never happen. Rather than pretend that's a realistic way to get people to release source, i'd rather not pretend. i'd rather see something different tried that may have some hope of success.
- catern 9y ago
  Sure. So why not GPL (v3) it anyway, if the GPL is so ineffective? After all, what you're telling me in your posts is that Google wants vendors to contribute back, but it can't force them. I don't want vendors to be able to create proprietary extensions. You claim Google also doesn't want vendors to create proprietary extensions. So: - If the GPL is effective, why not use it? - If the GPL is ineffective, it can't possibly hurt and at the very least it sends a positive signal. So why not use it? Edit: I'm not sure why you edited your post rather than reply. But I don't think you have really answered my question as it is put here. Is the GPL effective or ineffective? Ineffective, you seem to say. So what's the harm? You claim you care about sources being released. Am I understanding you wrong? Maybe some employees of Google don't like the GPL. But simultaneously they want all driver sources to be released? But simultaneously they think the GPL is ineffective and won't achieve that? Your post doesn't really add up. Could you list the reasons why Google isn't using the GPL for Fuschia as bullet points, or something?

Then why is it not licensed under the GPL, like Linux?

by catern 9y ago

Then why is it not licensed under the GPL, like Linux?

joshuamorton 9y ago

I'll ask a related question: Why license it under the GPL? What does Google gain? (and what do you gain)

oconnor0 9y ago
You gain the knowledge that a device running Fuchsia is running code that's publicly available.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Do you though? Google, as the liscenser is free to keep portions of fuschia under lock and key, so that's not really the case.
  - CountSessine 9y ago
    You're really not convincing me that Google's intentions are good. Not licensing under GPL is a clear signal that Google is prioritizing hardware partners' needs over their users. Just like Android.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      I'm not trying to, I just don't think that using GPL would make them any nobler, except in the eyes of GPL-fanatics.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  No, you actually don't. You gain knowledge that some of the code is maybe publicly available, just like linux. The rest, however, is often still kept secret, legally or not, and has been since time immemorial. You don't have to take my word for it though, go ask bradley kuhn if he thinks that vendors have a tendency to comply with the GPL for the kernel :)
  - catern 9y ago
    Consider what happens if you're wrong. What happens if the GPL actually is the reason why Linux has such wide open-source hardware support? Then say goodbye to hacking on Fuschia on your own hardware... I'm not willing to take that risk.

DannyBee 9y ago

The real answer is because the people involved believe the licenses they are using are even more free. IE they do not subscribe to the FSF's ideology. It's their software, so they get to choose. It's like arguing NetBSD should use the GPL license. As for why it generally doesn't make sense to use the GPL for this: Even the FSF doesn't think GPLv2 is the right license for linux? GPL'ing linux hasn't prevented any of the problems you mention, either in theory or in practice, so why do the same thing and hope for a different result? (If you've never read it, i suggest you go read the various threads where linus, etc explain that in practice, the only approach that works is carrot, not stick) It would be the same for Mozilla or anyone else who got popular enough with GPL software and had lots of vendors and OEMs who used their software. GPL'ing the kernel or not does not change that some people don't follow the rules. You can have them sign it in blood if you want. They'll just work around you or ignore you, as long as there is money to be made. Also, once you are big enough, cutting them off will just attract regulators. In practice, you will not get them to follow the rules by having a "war on gpl violators" any moreso than we have solved the US drug problem by having a "war on drugs". If you (or others here) dream is of an ecosystem where everyone is forced, under pain of death, to follow the GPL, it's pretty unrealistic. It's not what happens now, it will never happen. Rather than pretend that's a realistic way to get people to release source, i'd rather not pretend. i'd rather see something different tried that may have some hope of success.

catern 9y ago
Sure. So why not GPL (v3) it anyway, if the GPL is so ineffective? After all, what you're telling me in your posts is that Google wants vendors to contribute back, but it can't force them. I don't want vendors to be able to create proprietary extensions. You claim Google also doesn't want vendors to create proprietary extensions. So: - If the GPL is effective, why not use it? - If the GPL is ineffective, it can't possibly hurt and at the very least it sends a positive signal. So why not use it? Edit: I'm not sure why you edited your post rather than reply. But I don't think you have really answered my question as it is put here. Is the GPL effective or ineffective? Ineffective, you seem to say. So what's the harm? You claim you care about sources being released. Am I understanding you wrong? Maybe some employees of Google don't like the GPL. But simultaneously they want all driver sources to be released? But simultaneously they think the GPL is ineffective and won't achieve that? Your post doesn't really add up. Could you list the reasons why Google isn't using the GPL for Fuschia as bullet points, or something?