10 ms·

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

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?
  - yebyen 8y ago
    You're mistaken. (Well, maybe not mistaken if I read exactly what you said literally, but people/companies most certainly do choose not to use GPL software if they're looking to build a system that they can exploit for profit-making purposes.) It takes a very forward-thinking person to understand that they have more to gain from the thousands of eyes and the support of the community, than from a paywall that gates access to their creation. (And that person could reasonably choose to license their software as GPL or any other open license, there are lots of trade-offs.) But if you're not building the system from scratch, you need to be aware of the licenses you've accepted, and for many businesses the addition of GPL software to the stack will be a non-starter. Do you think we'd have Apple as it is today if it wasn't for BSD Unix and the BSD license?
    - nine_k 8y ago
      Would we have Android today were it not for GPLv2 and Linux licensed under it? But indeed, GPL does limit the ways you can distribute software licensed under it. In particular, licensing something like a library, or another early-bound component under GPL forces the users to license their work under GPL, too. This is why LGPL exists.
      - yebyen 8y ago
        Absolutely! Not saying that Apple model is right or wrong, but they certainly chose BSD consciously (whether or not it was because of the encumbrance of GPL, or any technical reasons). It's simply wrong to say that nobody pays attention to this. It's a choice you make, and whether you view the consequences as "repercussions" or "features" depends entirely on your view and the actual outcomes of those choices. Fwiw I understand that Darwin is also available as BSD, so it seems you can get some good actors that are willing to pay it forward without necessarily needing to add a license that goads them into it.
- jarcane 8y ago
  If they will not use my free software because of the expectation that they contribute back even a little, then they are not users I want anyway, so who cares? I find the entitlement complex that some software developers have over other peoples' software to be bizarre. "How dare you offer this free software under terms that don't allow me to exploit your labor commercially without the slightest contribution!" is a real thing that real people say every goddamn time you dare release anything not MIT/BSD licensed.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  No, try: "Do I want the end users of my software to have rights?" That's what GPL ensures. You can use GPL software anywhere but if you're giving it to other people, you have to give them the same rights you were afforded. And sometimes that also means giving them access to your software too. LGPL exists too. Makes it a bit more simple for drop-in-libraries.
- shadowmint 8y ago
  tisk tisk, so many downvotes and knee jerk reactions, but this is pragmatically correct. GPL is unpopular, and if you want people to use your software, it is the wrong license to choose. Should it be? Perhaps not. ...but I don't think the parent comment is nearly as wrong as people seem to think. It doesn't matter if the GPL technically is a better or worse license; the fact is that (perhaps indeed driven by large corporations) GPL has a very negative image right now, and since we do live in a 'look at my popular github repo with oh so many stars, aren't I popular, oh btw hire me pls' world now, that is actually a big deal. The question is not, 'should I use GPL?', because the answer is no, if you want to have a successful popular open source project. The question is; how do we actually change the perception of GPL so the answer becomes yes? I'm not sure... but I think it's a far more important question. (I can certainly say that I no longer use the GPL, after using it for many years, largely because it was requested I remove it from projects. What do you do in that situation? Since I really don't care that much why not just put it under something else? I don't have a good answer.)
  - rplnt 8y ago
    Arguing for something automatically means you agree with it and support it, apparently. So if I say why would people use less restrictive license for certain project, I apparently hate GPL and/or don't understand it. I guess.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
skrebbel 8y ago
I've always wondered why GPL dual licensing isn't more popular. In particular, I've always wondered why "GPL or ask me for permission" isn't being explored more. That still allows you to be extremely permissive but you get the make the call. Eg if I were coding a database like Redis, maybe I'd be totally cool with people freely using it in their moonshot VC-funded trike sharing site, but not with cloud providers offering it as a paid service (or, at least not without paying me some royalties).
- anyzen 8y ago
  > In particular, I've always wondered why "GPL or ask me for permission" isn't being explored more. Maybe because then you need to have CLA's (Contributor License Agreements)? Otherwise, who is "you" that they need to ask? It's not just your code, it is based on work of many other contributers.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    Not if you don't have any other contributors.
    - oliwarner 8y ago
      But you'll have an epic dilemma the day they drop the PR.
      - blattimwind 8y ago
        Only if you merge it.
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    Possibly-ignorant legal question: Could the "CLA" be as simple as a checkbox on the PR submission form that says something to the effect of "You agree that your contributions to this repository, while owned by and credited to you, belong to (ownername) for the purposes of copyright and license enforcement?" Basically, making anyone who contributes aware that the contribution doesn't give them a claim in the copyright of the project. Short and simple.
breakingcups 8y ago
There's a big push by larger corporations such as Google away from GPL-like licenses towards MIT licenses. Unfortunately many smaller developers seem to follow suit even if it doesn't necessarily suit their interest as much as it does FAANG's.
nine_k 8y ago
GPL is great for infrastructure things: it allows easy sharing, but requires reciprocity and prevents takeovers. GPL gave us Linux, a wildly successful OS kernel. Also, GPL is compatible with commercial dual-licensing, which may be important in some cases, such as use in governmental agencies. MIT/BSD is great for small, less important things, and allows for no-question-asked use of such software in basically any setting where software does not need certification. This is something many authors seem to cherish: "my piece is useful and popular!". The problem is that a small fun hack may eventually grow into an important infrastructural piece, and at best you can try and re-license it under GPL / LGPL if you want more control, and all contributors agree. OTOH going with AGPL usually means that no corporation will ever touch your software with a ten-foot pole, so corporate contributions to the codebase will be zero (unlike GPL software). This may keep that software more free in one's eyes, but also obscure.
- Zarel 8y ago
  > at best you can try and re-license it under GPL / LGPL if you want more control, and all contributors agree You actually don't need all contributors to agree, you only need one. The MIT and BSD licenses don't ban you from relicensing into more restrictive licenses (that's why they're popular with businesses, after all).
  - nine_k 8y ago
    No, they require you to retain the copyright notice and the license text, and the license states otherwise: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/305/8261 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/305/8261
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      If you can clearly delineate your new code under a different compatible license, you should be fine from the legal standpoint. The fine hair splitting begins at what is the required amount of modifications required to be able to relicense the given chunk of code.
- 8y ago
CJefferson 8y ago
I was soured on the GPL by GPL v3. I don't want "or later", because that is giving control of my code to whoever ends up owning the FSF in the future. However, then you end up with a GPL v2 system, where some authors have passed away so relicensing is impossible, which you can't link to new versions of GNU libraries as they have gone v3 only. It's maddening.
- jjrh 8y ago
  Exactly, folks above need to be more specific when they say 'GPL' because there are radical differences between GPLv3 and GPLv2.

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?
- yebyen 8y ago
  You're mistaken. (Well, maybe not mistaken if I read exactly what you said literally, but people/companies most certainly do choose not to use GPL software if they're looking to build a system that they can exploit for profit-making purposes.) It takes a very forward-thinking person to understand that they have more to gain from the thousands of eyes and the support of the community, than from a paywall that gates access to their creation. (And that person could reasonably choose to license their software as GPL or any other open license, there are lots of trade-offs.) But if you're not building the system from scratch, you need to be aware of the licenses you've accepted, and for many businesses the addition of GPL software to the stack will be a non-starter. Do you think we'd have Apple as it is today if it wasn't for BSD Unix and the BSD license?
  - nine_k 8y ago
    Would we have Android today were it not for GPLv2 and Linux licensed under it? But indeed, GPL does limit the ways you can distribute software licensed under it. In particular, licensing something like a library, or another early-bound component under GPL forces the users to license their work under GPL, too. This is why LGPL exists.
    - yebyen 8y ago
      Absolutely! Not saying that Apple model is right or wrong, but they certainly chose BSD consciously (whether or not it was because of the encumbrance of GPL, or any technical reasons). It's simply wrong to say that nobody pays attention to this. It's a choice you make, and whether you view the consequences as "repercussions" or "features" depends entirely on your view and the actual outcomes of those choices. Fwiw I understand that Darwin is also available as BSD, so it seems you can get some good actors that are willing to pay it forward without necessarily needing to add a license that goads them into it.
jarcane 8y ago
If they will not use my free software because of the expectation that they contribute back even a little, then they are not users I want anyway, so who cares? I find the entitlement complex that some software developers have over other peoples' software to be bizarre. "How dare you offer this free software under terms that don't allow me to exploit your labor commercially without the slightest contribution!" is a real thing that real people say every goddamn time you dare release anything not MIT/BSD licensed.
oliwarner 8y ago
No, try: "Do I want the end users of my software to have rights?" That's what GPL ensures. You can use GPL software anywhere but if you're giving it to other people, you have to give them the same rights you were afforded. And sometimes that also means giving them access to your software too. LGPL exists too. Makes it a bit more simple for drop-in-libraries.
shadowmint 8y ago
tisk tisk, so many downvotes and knee jerk reactions, but this is pragmatically correct. GPL is unpopular, and if you want people to use your software, it is the wrong license to choose. Should it be? Perhaps not. ...but I don't think the parent comment is nearly as wrong as people seem to think. It doesn't matter if the GPL technically is a better or worse license; the fact is that (perhaps indeed driven by large corporations) GPL has a very negative image right now, and since we do live in a 'look at my popular github repo with oh so many stars, aren't I popular, oh btw hire me pls' world now, that is actually a big deal. The question is not, 'should I use GPL?', because the answer is no, if you want to have a successful popular open source project. The question is; how do we actually change the perception of GPL so the answer becomes yes? I'm not sure... but I think it's a far more important question. (I can certainly say that I no longer use the GPL, after using it for many years, largely because it was requested I remove it from projects. What do you do in that situation? Since I really don't care that much why not just put it under something else? I don't have a good answer.)
- rplnt 8y ago
  Arguing for something automatically means you agree with it and support it, apparently. So if I say why would people use less restrictive license for certain project, I apparently hate GPL and/or don't understand it. I guess.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

skrebbel 8y ago

I've always wondered why GPL dual licensing isn't more popular. In particular, I've always wondered why "GPL or ask me for permission" isn't being explored more. That still allows you to be extremely permissive but you get the make the call. Eg if I were coding a database like Redis, maybe I'd be totally cool with people freely using it in their moonshot VC-funded trike sharing site, but not with cloud providers offering it as a paid service (or, at least not without paying me some royalties).

anyzen 8y ago
> In particular, I've always wondered why "GPL or ask me for permission" isn't being explored more. Maybe because then you need to have CLA's (Contributor License Agreements)? Otherwise, who is "you" that they need to ask? It's not just your code, it is based on work of many other contributers.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  Not if you don't have any other contributors.
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    But you'll have an epic dilemma the day they drop the PR.
    - blattimwind 8y ago
      Only if you merge it.
- Karunamon 8y ago
  Possibly-ignorant legal question: Could the "CLA" be as simple as a checkbox on the PR submission form that says something to the effect of "You agree that your contributions to this repository, while owned by and credited to you, belong to (ownername) for the purposes of copyright and license enforcement?" Basically, making anyone who contributes aware that the contribution doesn't give them a claim in the copyright of the project. Short and simple.

breakingcups 8y ago

There's a big push by larger corporations such as Google away from GPL-like licenses towards MIT licenses. Unfortunately many smaller developers seem to follow suit even if it doesn't necessarily suit their interest as much as it does FAANG's.

nine_k 8y ago

GPL is great for infrastructure things: it allows easy sharing, but requires reciprocity and prevents takeovers. GPL gave us Linux, a wildly successful OS kernel. Also, GPL is compatible with commercial dual-licensing, which may be important in some cases, such as use in governmental agencies. MIT/BSD is great for small, less important things, and allows for no-question-asked use of such software in basically any setting where software does not need certification. This is something many authors seem to cherish: "my piece is useful and popular!". The problem is that a small fun hack may eventually grow into an important infrastructural piece, and at best you can try and re-license it under GPL / LGPL if you want more control, and all contributors agree. OTOH going with AGPL usually means that no corporation will ever touch your software with a ten-foot pole, so corporate contributions to the codebase will be zero (unlike GPL software). This may keep that software more free in one's eyes, but also obscure.

Zarel 8y ago
> at best you can try and re-license it under GPL / LGPL if you want more control, and all contributors agree You actually don't need all contributors to agree, you only need one. The MIT and BSD licenses don't ban you from relicensing into more restrictive licenses (that's why they're popular with businesses, after all).
- nine_k 8y ago
  No, they require you to retain the copyright notice and the license text, and the license states otherwise: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/305/8261 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/305/8261
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    If you can clearly delineate your new code under a different compatible license, you should be fine from the legal standpoint. The fine hair splitting begins at what is the required amount of modifications required to be able to relicense the given chunk of code.
8y ago

CJefferson 8y ago

I was soured on the GPL by GPL v3. I don't want "or later", because that is giving control of my code to whoever ends up owning the FSF in the future. However, then you end up with a GPL v2 system, where some authors have passed away so relicensing is impossible, which you can't link to new versions of GNU libraries as they have gone v3 only. It's maddening.

jjrh 8y ago
Exactly, folks above need to be more specific when they say 'GPL' because there are radical differences between GPLv3 and GPLv2.