3 ms·

But if the licence is not enforced, then what's the point of writing it or using it ? Put it under WTFL. Shorter, less paper work.

greglindahl 9y ago
The license is enforced, just more gently than some might want.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Define "gently", because that doesn't seems like a term that goes well with enforcement, which contains the root "force".
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    The definition has already been given in the other comments in this discussion about how the community prefers enforcement to be done.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      No it hasn't. That's not enforcement. The community choose not to enforce. "gently" has nothing to do with it. I get that this is a preference, and they make the software and choose the licence so this is their choice. But that's not enforcement. It basically means you can do whatever you want with it. And hence people do. The system works because a few are giving away a lot while most benefit from it with taking without giving back anything. This is why everything is behind an API paywall now. This is why XMPP is getting shut down. This is why IMAP is being replaced by proprietary front ends. Why we have DRM in HTML5. Why TiVo did what it did. Because, well, we let them.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        This is why everything is behind an API paywall now. This is why XMPP is getting shut down. This is why IMAP is being replaced by proprietary front ends. Why we have DRM in HTML5. Why TiVo did what it did. In what way would a vigorous enforcement of the GPL prevent any of that? The only even remotely related to the GPL is TiVo, and even then it wasn't lack of enforcement, the version of the license simply didn't prevent it, hence GPLv3.
  - julienfr112 9y ago
    oxymoron, right ? like a benevolent punishment, a liberating constrain ... Come on, we are in the same boat here, we agree Linux (and Wikipedia and ...) are amazing things. And we all admire and cheer the contributors and so on. Don't be mad when we point a small incoherence. It's like opening an issue, close it if you have a large support of the community, but please, spend 5 minutes thinking about it from a new point a view.
dizzystar 9y ago
If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. It also makes no sense to sue the companies violating the licenses. They would be more inclined to move to a closed-source option with a known fee, since the very product you are using has an ambiguous cost attached to it. For example, I have deep disdain for people who build up WordPress or Drupal sites for clients and flat out refuse to let the customer have their code, but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. If you are for open source, you want to actively encourage the use of these platforms (regardless if you think they are trash) instead of having these people move over to some equally bad system. This is worse for the OSS community. It's also worse for the customer, since hidden fees for MS or Oracle will be tacked onto the product price. If word got out, even those who follow GPLv2 to a T would have reason to be nervous, so they'd just migrate off the platform as well.
- sametmax 9y ago
  > If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. Apparently they already can. If there is no enforcement, what prevents anybody from doing it ? Good will. > but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. Remove "should" and "to oblivion", and the result seems reasonable. After all, we can't give tickets like for speeding for those infraction. The only problem with sueing here is the cost of it. But it's perfectly alright from a moral point of view. People worked hard, sometimes for free, for free software to exist, out of idealism. The only thing they demand is to accept the licence.
  - wiz21c 9y ago
    Yup, all of that is strange. Because if enforcement is rare, then a simple risk analysis allows everyone to leech without contributing back. Even more so if the only punishment you may have is "comply" (publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think). Now that everybody knows the true political aim of the GPLv3 and that we know the pragmatism of BSD and others, I wonder under what license would the kernel have been published today...

greglindahl 9y ago

The license is enforced, just more gently than some might want.

sametmax 9y ago
Define "gently", because that doesn't seems like a term that goes well with enforcement, which contains the root "force".
- greglindahl 9y ago
  The definition has already been given in the other comments in this discussion about how the community prefers enforcement to be done.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    No it hasn't. That's not enforcement. The community choose not to enforce. "gently" has nothing to do with it. I get that this is a preference, and they make the software and choose the licence so this is their choice. But that's not enforcement. It basically means you can do whatever you want with it. And hence people do. The system works because a few are giving away a lot while most benefit from it with taking without giving back anything. This is why everything is behind an API paywall now. This is why XMPP is getting shut down. This is why IMAP is being replaced by proprietary front ends. Why we have DRM in HTML5. Why TiVo did what it did. Because, well, we let them.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      This is why everything is behind an API paywall now. This is why XMPP is getting shut down. This is why IMAP is being replaced by proprietary front ends. Why we have DRM in HTML5. Why TiVo did what it did. In what way would a vigorous enforcement of the GPL prevent any of that? The only even remotely related to the GPL is TiVo, and even then it wasn't lack of enforcement, the version of the license simply didn't prevent it, hence GPLv3.
- julienfr112 9y ago
  oxymoron, right ? like a benevolent punishment, a liberating constrain ... Come on, we are in the same boat here, we agree Linux (and Wikipedia and ...) are amazing things. And we all admire and cheer the contributors and so on. Don't be mad when we point a small incoherence. It's like opening an issue, close it if you have a large support of the community, but please, spend 5 minutes thinking about it from a new point a view.

dizzystar 9y ago

If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. It also makes no sense to sue the companies violating the licenses. They would be more inclined to move to a closed-source option with a known fee, since the very product you are using has an ambiguous cost attached to it. For example, I have deep disdain for people who build up WordPress or Drupal sites for clients and flat out refuse to let the customer have their code, but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. If you are for open source, you want to actively encourage the use of these platforms (regardless if you think they are trash) instead of having these people move over to some equally bad system. This is worse for the OSS community. It's also worse for the customer, since hidden fees for MS or Oracle will be tacked onto the product price. If word got out, even those who follow GPLv2 to a T would have reason to be nervous, so they'd just migrate off the platform as well.

sametmax 9y ago
> If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage. Apparently they already can. If there is no enforcement, what prevents anybody from doing it ? Good will. > but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice. Remove "should" and "to oblivion", and the result seems reasonable. After all, we can't give tickets like for speeding for those infraction. The only problem with sueing here is the cost of it. But it's perfectly alright from a moral point of view. People worked hard, sometimes for free, for free software to exist, out of idealism. The only thing they demand is to accept the licence.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  Yup, all of that is strange. Because if enforcement is rare, then a simple risk analysis allows everyone to leech without contributing back. Even more so if the only punishment you may have is "comply" (publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think). Now that everybody knows the true political aim of the GPLv3 and that we know the pragmatism of BSD and others, I wonder under what license would the kernel have been published today...