10 ms·

I agree. There's the reflex (here and elsewhere) to dismiss reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL as "uncool", pretentious, and show-stopping. Maybe it's time t

I agree. There's the reflex (here and elsewhere) to dismiss reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL as "uncool", pretentious, and show-stopping. Maybe it's time to reconsider in times of cloud oligopoles. Because why would you want your software become part of the lock-in strategy of a cloud provider.

tokyodude 8y ago
because they give me a service for free? Or just because we're all in this together? I'm sure it depends on the examples you pick. I'm totally happy if people use my MITed code in a commerical product without reciprocating. I'm not writing it for them. I'm mostly writing it for myself. The payback is the joy I feel when others find it useful. I also feel joy by being part of the larger collection of people and companies that have given me so much free stuff. Python, clang, v8, firefox, chromium, electron, zlib, libjpeg, libpng, git, sdl, react, etc etc...
- sincerely 8y ago
  How can you say “We’re all in this together” when youre donating your time and they use the fruits of that labor to profit off you
  - pas 8y ago
    OP increases the sum in the non-zero-sum sense. Sure, gots back directly nothing, but the chance that gets more eventually increases.
  - iKevinShah 8y ago
    Key differentiation here is that the person is not donating time so that a company necessarily profits off that labor. OP is getting what they (OP) are expecting out of it (joy by being a part of larger collection of people that have given them so much free stuff)
- tannhaeuser 8y ago
  git is a good example. It's GPLv2, but that hasn't prevented it from being used to form a near-monopoly (github) for F/OSS, now bought by MS. Linux: used in the world's largest spynet (Android). Your joy and enthusiasm being taken advantage of for nefarious purposes.
  - carlmr 8y ago
    >git is a good example. It's GPLv2 Is it a good example? I'm not very firm with licensing. As far as I understand it git is not a library or a programming language, which means that even if you use it commercially you're not really modifying or repackaging it in your software, so there's really no duties arising out of it even if you use it on your servers. Your software is just communicating with git. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    - inciampati 8y ago
      git is a both domain specific programming language and library of software routines that enable version control. Curious why you don't see it this way.
      - carlmr 8y ago
        It's a separate program though, so you're not repackaging, modifying or redistributing. Let's take for example TortoiseGit, should they decide to sell TortoiseGit now, they wouldn't have a problem with the GPL because they're not redistributing git. They just say, download git and our program will connect to it. Git does not become part of TortoiseGit at any point. You could replace the git client with one that has the same interface and it would still work.
        lmm 8y ago
        Whether TortoiseGit is a derivative work of Git is ultimately a legal question. Certainly just being a separate binary doesn't automatically make it not one. "You could replace the git client with one that has the same interface and it would still work." - that's true of any library used in any program.
another-cuppa 8y ago
It's really sad that the GPL has essentially "gone out of fashion". It's sad that developers would be driven merely by fashion rather than careful consideration. The fact that we have free software at all is largely thanks to the GNU and the GPL.
- rplnt 8y ago
  It's not just fashion. It's a question of "Do I want someone to use my software?", because with GPL the answer would be no for a lot of projects.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Open-source or closed source projects? As discussed upthread, avoiding being used in closed source projects is the entire purpose of the GPL.
    - nine_k 8y ago
      Rather, being _embedded_ into a closed-source project, making a closed-source derivative work. You can of course compose your system of closed-source and GPL'd parts, as long as GPL'd parts are separate, and remain open.
    - rplnt 8y ago
      Well, both really. Even with open source, if I want to license my code under whatever license for whatever reason, I can't use GPL code. And I'm not arguing for people to not use GPL. All I'm saying is there are valid reasons to use MIT (or whatever) if ones goal is to make their project as usable as possible.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Good, I don’t want them using my projects then. If they want it to be a one way street, they don’t got the right to touch my stuff.
  - another-cuppa 8y ago
    Why do you think that? Linux is the most widely used operating system in the world and it's licensed under GPL. People don't choose not to use software because it's GPL. Why would they?
merinowool 8y ago
Kubernetes makes it easy, but there are few missing pieces - for example there is no load balancer that you can use with commodity dedicated servers (there is metallb, but it requires routing facilities most hosting providers don't offer).
dragonwriter 8y ago
> There's the reflex (here and elsewhere) to dismiss reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL as "uncool", pretentious, and show-stopping. They aren't uncool, they just have terms that lots of people have good reasons not to want to deal with, and which many devs don't want to impose on downstream (in part because lots of people don't want to deal with them.)
- nine_k 8y ago
  Who are those people that don't want to deal with a reciprocal license? Are they paying customers? Good, GPL and commercial dual-licensing is a thing, and thank them for their business! Are they people who would like to just use the software for their benefit, modify it to their taste and distribute, and keep the improvements concealed from everyone who made it possible? Tough luck, nobody promised them a free ride like that. They're still free to run unmodified GPL'd software. Is there a third kind that I fail to recognize? (Edit: added "and distribute".)
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    > Who are those people that don't want to deal with a reciprocal license? My theory is: the HN crowd that hates reciprocal licenses are developers who dislike that they can't easily use that code for work - that is, their employers makes it hard for them to do so vs. BSD-type code. They care more about developer freedom (to integrate various pieces they feel entitled to), more than user freedom (to modify the resulting software).
Karunamon 8y ago
>Because why would you want your software become part of the lock-in strategy of a cloud provider Because I care more about that my software was found useful enough to be used, less so about by who and why? This is the main ethos behind licenses like BSD and MIT and APL. That, or I don't care enough to take a stance on license politics, and the BSDlike licenses are the only way I can put my work out there whilst giving any prospective downloader the least amount of need to think about license politics. I don't share this "those evil corporations!" mindset that tends to drive so many that choose a GPL-series license.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  > and the BSDlike licenses are the only way I can put my work out there whilst giving any prospective downloader the least amount of need to think about license politics But it also means that you won't be able to independently produce much software to begin with nor sustain such practice. If that's ok, then it doesn't really matter which license you choose. A few hobby libraries and utilities that you will be able to afford to write don't matter much.
- doesnt_know 8y ago
  From my experience, "those evil companies" isnt actually a common argument in free software circles. It's only a problem in the sense that they fail to pass on the freedoms required by the license (breaking copyright law) or attempt to circumvent the intent of it (see Tivoization). It's pretty common to actually see the opposite. When companies genuinely create/modify/support free software they tend to be praised and actively supported in the free software community.
quadrangle 8y ago
> reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL Note: they are not reciprocal. They require passing on the freedoms. They are pay-it-forward, downstream licenses. If you get something back, it's incidental (though common).

tokyodude 8y ago

because they give me a service for free? Or just because we're all in this together? I'm sure it depends on the examples you pick. I'm totally happy if people use my MITed code in a commerical product without reciprocating. I'm not writing it for them. I'm mostly writing it for myself. The payback is the joy I feel when others find it useful. I also feel joy by being part of the larger collection of people and companies that have given me so much free stuff. Python, clang, v8, firefox, chromium, electron, zlib, libjpeg, libpng, git, sdl, react, etc etc...

sincerely 8y ago
How can you say “We’re all in this together” when youre donating your time and they use the fruits of that labor to profit off you
- pas 8y ago
  OP increases the sum in the non-zero-sum sense. Sure, gots back directly nothing, but the chance that gets more eventually increases.
- iKevinShah 8y ago
  Key differentiation here is that the person is not donating time so that a company necessarily profits off that labor. OP is getting what they (OP) are expecting out of it (joy by being a part of larger collection of people that have given them so much free stuff)
tannhaeuser 8y ago
git is a good example. It's GPLv2, but that hasn't prevented it from being used to form a near-monopoly (github) for F/OSS, now bought by MS. Linux: used in the world's largest spynet (Android). Your joy and enthusiasm being taken advantage of for nefarious purposes.
- carlmr 8y ago
  >git is a good example. It's GPLv2 Is it a good example? I'm not very firm with licensing. As far as I understand it git is not a library or a programming language, which means that even if you use it commercially you're not really modifying or repackaging it in your software, so there's really no duties arising out of it even if you use it on your servers. Your software is just communicating with git. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  - inciampati 8y ago
    git is a both domain specific programming language and library of software routines that enable version control. Curious why you don't see it this way.
    - carlmr 8y ago
      It's a separate program though, so you're not repackaging, modifying or redistributing. Let's take for example TortoiseGit, should they decide to sell TortoiseGit now, they wouldn't have a problem with the GPL because they're not redistributing git. They just say, download git and our program will connect to it. Git does not become part of TortoiseGit at any point. You could replace the git client with one that has the same interface and it would still work.
      - lmm 8y ago
        Whether TortoiseGit is a derivative work of Git is ultimately a legal question. Certainly just being a separate binary doesn't automatically make it not one. "You could replace the git client with one that has the same interface and it would still work." - that's true of any library used in any program.

another-cuppa 8y ago

It's really sad that the GPL has essentially "gone out of fashion". It's sad that developers would be driven merely by fashion rather than careful consideration. The fact that we have free software at all is largely thanks to the GNU and the GPL.

rplnt 8y ago
It's not just fashion. It's a question of "Do I want someone to use my software?", because with GPL the answer would be no for a lot of projects.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Open-source or closed source projects? As discussed upthread, avoiding being used in closed source projects is the entire purpose of the GPL.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    Rather, being _embedded_ into a closed-source project, making a closed-source derivative work. You can of course compose your system of closed-source and GPL'd parts, as long as GPL'd parts are separate, and remain open.
  - rplnt 8y ago
    Well, both really. Even with open source, if I want to license my code under whatever license for whatever reason, I can't use GPL code. And I'm not arguing for people to not use GPL. All I'm saying is there are valid reasons to use MIT (or whatever) if ones goal is to make their project as usable as possible.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Good, I don’t want them using my projects then. If they want it to be a one way street, they don’t got the right to touch my stuff.
- another-cuppa 8y ago
  Why do you think that? Linux is the most widely used operating system in the world and it's licensed under GPL. People don't choose not to use software because it's GPL. Why would they?

merinowool 8y ago

Kubernetes makes it easy, but there are few missing pieces - for example there is no load balancer that you can use with commodity dedicated servers (there is metallb, but it requires routing facilities most hosting providers don't offer).

dragonwriter 8y ago

> There's the reflex (here and elsewhere) to dismiss reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL as "uncool", pretentious, and show-stopping. They aren't uncool, they just have terms that lots of people have good reasons not to want to deal with, and which many devs don't want to impose on downstream (in part because lots of people don't want to deal with them.)

nine_k 8y ago
Who are those people that don't want to deal with a reciprocal license? Are they paying customers? Good, GPL and commercial dual-licensing is a thing, and thank them for their business! Are they people who would like to just use the software for their benefit, modify it to their taste and distribute, and keep the improvements concealed from everyone who made it possible? Tough luck, nobody promised them a free ride like that. They're still free to run unmodified GPL'd software. Is there a third kind that I fail to recognize? (Edit: added "and distribute".)
- sangnoir 8y ago
  > Who are those people that don't want to deal with a reciprocal license? My theory is: the HN crowd that hates reciprocal licenses are developers who dislike that they can't easily use that code for work - that is, their employers makes it hard for them to do so vs. BSD-type code. They care more about developer freedom (to integrate various pieces they feel entitled to), more than user freedom (to modify the resulting software).

Karunamon 8y ago

>Because why would you want your software become part of the lock-in strategy of a cloud provider Because I care more about that my software was found useful enough to be used, less so about by who and why? This is the main ethos behind licenses like BSD and MIT and APL. That, or I don't care enough to take a stance on license politics, and the BSDlike licenses are the only way I can put my work out there whilst giving any prospective downloader the least amount of need to think about license politics. I don't share this "those evil corporations!" mindset that tends to drive so many that choose a GPL-series license.

zzzcpan 8y ago
> and the BSDlike licenses are the only way I can put my work out there whilst giving any prospective downloader the least amount of need to think about license politics But it also means that you won't be able to independently produce much software to begin with nor sustain such practice. If that's ok, then it doesn't really matter which license you choose. A few hobby libraries and utilities that you will be able to afford to write don't matter much.
doesnt_know 8y ago
From my experience, "those evil companies" isnt actually a common argument in free software circles. It's only a problem in the sense that they fail to pass on the freedoms required by the license (breaking copyright law) or attempt to circumvent the intent of it (see Tivoization). It's pretty common to actually see the opposite. When companies genuinely create/modify/support free software they tend to be praised and actively supported in the free software community.

quadrangle 8y ago

> reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL Note: they are not reciprocal. They require passing on the freedoms. They are pay-it-forward, downstream licenses. If you get something back, it's incidental (though common).