6 ms·

> It enriches everyone, even those who I don't necessarily agree with. That's definitely a valid PoV, but you just have to realize/accept that it may empower p

> It enriches everyone, even those who I don't necessarily agree with. That's definitely a valid PoV, but you just have to realize/accept that it may empower people who have power over you. I'm mostly talking about economic power here, but with the absurd expansion of lobbying, etc., this may extend to political power, cf. Turbotax[1]. Again: It's ultimately up to you, but for me... I don't want to give big conglomerates an inch if I can avoid it. Both as an individual and as a software-development business owner. (We do bespoke software, so "overly-permissive" licensing isn't really much of threat in that space -- from either perspective: There's no software that does what we provide, nor would what we provide do much for anyone else except our clients.) I'm not sure if this is too controversial, but I think BSD (permissive for developers, maybe restrictive for users) vs. GPL (restrictive for developers, permissive for users) is very similar to the Paradox of Tolerance in a way. [1] Who knows if they're using MIT/BSD licensed code, but I think it serves as a good example of the power of lobbying at least. EDIT: I don't grammar so good.

jahewson 7y ago
People who have power over you are, by definition, already empowered. Whether or not you give them something for free isn't going to move the needle.
- Quekid5 7y ago
  "something" = "leverage". Disprove that. As a bonus point, leverage is exactly what you may be giving them by licensing with the BSD/MIT/... There's no guarantee that they'll gain leverage, but if they see and seize the opportunity then that's what they'll get. EDIT: The APL 2.0 is kind of interesting here because it doesn't really do that much over BSD/MIT/... except for the patent grant thing. The patent thing actually brings it much closer to 'acceptable' for me, personally, because a lot of instances of conglomerates exercising their power has been through software patents.
- grumdan 7y ago
  It does cement their power over you even further though. An individual project may not make an appreciable difference, but in aggregate, if lots of people make similar choices, it may have an impact.
- wrsh07 7y ago
  Easy counter example: cockroach labs & Amazon Why did cockroach decide on their new business license?
  - threwawasy1228 7y ago
    I don't think that is a fair counter example since it isn't actually straight GPL and provides a different type of leverage than GPL does, which is what we were discussing. The Cockroach Community License[0] was created specifically to fit their needs, and it differs from GPL in several ways. [0] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/cockroachdb-community-license/ https://www.cockroachlabs.com/cockroachdb-community-license/
    - wrsh07 7y ago
      The parent I'm responding to is trying to suggest that giving entities more powerful than yourself (eg better funded) doesn't help them. That's obviously bs, and that's what I was responding to.
eitland 7y ago
> That's definitely a valid PoV, but you just have to realize/accept that it may empower people who have power over you. Newtons Equations has also empowered the powerful for a while now but I think we are still happy that they are available for free for everyone without any limitations.
- jeena 7y ago
  Nobody can take them, change them and close them and sell you a better version of them. So, I have no idea how you made the connection to MIT here.
  - eitland 7y ago
    In the same way nobody can take your MIT program and close it. Create a better version? Sure. Make the better version closed? Sure. But close it? No. Same with math: once discovered and publish anyone can do anything with it.
- Quekid5 7y ago
  What? I'm really struggling to find the nugget of 'point' in there, but... what? Are you saying that Gravity is somehow biased toward powerful people? Are you saying that refraction is somehow biased toward powerful people? I'm left so confused by your comment. It's amazing -- hopefully in a good way!)
  - cheerlessbog 7y ago
    > I'm left so confused by your comment. It's amazing -- hopefully in a good way!) This is such a great positive way to reply, kudos
  - TuringTest 7y ago
    I believe etland might be referring to the knowledge provided by discovering the equations, rather than the natural phenomena themselves. But I may be wrong.
    - 7y ago
supernovae 7y ago
I read what you say and want to flip it around back at you - Aren't you just projecting your own power in lieu of your perceived loss of power? Even your framing of your market space projects a sense of power. GPL actually doesn't protect you from your fear. The AGPL does, but I don't know much that uses that.
- jake_the_third 7y ago
  Many years back, I bought an expensive android phone to discover that it did not support my native language. I have the necessary technical skills to add support for it, but because the phone was locked down (something enabled by permissive licenses but not the GPL), I couldn't fix the phone myself and ended up with a very expensive but useless brick. Corporate interests rarely align completely with your own, and this small difference can be very damaging to your interests. The GPL, while not perfect, alleviates some of the damage caused by this misalignment by ensuring that users remain in a position to address it.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    The problem is, in practice, the GPL doesn't assure as many rights to the user as it is claimed. The example of Android shows this clearly. While the base of Android is GPL and consequently freely available, nonetheless Google managed to mix it with enough proprietary parts, so that they could could block Huawai from selling their phones with Android. Of course, Huawai is able to build their own OS based on the open source parts of Android, but for all practical purposes it will be a separate OS.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      Only the kernel is GPL, AOSP is Apache.
      - _ph_ 7y ago
        Well, right. Thats my point. They have enough parts in "Android" which don't fall under GPL and thus they can keep them proprietary.
est31 7y ago
> I think BSD (permissive for developers, maybe restrictive for users) vs. GPL (restrictive for developers, permissive for users) is very similar to the Paradox of Tolerance in a way. It very much boils down to tolerance, yeah. I've made the experience that in the communities where permissive licenses are common, there is much larger tolerance for proprietary software and services than in communities that revolve around GPL. I personally don't care much about GPL vs permissive per se, but I do care about the four freedoms and see copyleft as neccessary evil that's needed in some instances to prevent proprietary takeovers.
- madez 7y ago
  The GPL is not self-serving; it is a tool to achieve a type of society, and that is the society you seem to enjoy, too. After all, by what else should be measure the permissive licences vs copyleft licences if not by their influence on society?
  - est31 7y ago
    Are you one of those "GPL is socialism" people? You are misguided. Yes, there are lots of marxists/communists in the open source / free software community and most people in it lean left. But the GPL itself is compatible with a capitalist society. In fact, GPL can be the basis for making money with FLOSS software, by offering non-GPL'd commercial licenses. All the GPL ensures that if you want to make a proprietary fork of the software, its original author has to be made part of the equation. Some people see it as a tool to achieve communism and I think they are misguided in the view that the goal is desireable. The open source software they create is nevertheless a valuable and worthy contribution to mankind. You can't just reject someone's work because of idiotic ideology. As long as they share this view and allow me to have a productive working relationship with them on the open source component, I'm fine.
    - madez 7y ago
      > Are you one of those "GPL is socialism" people? No, not all. I don't even know why you'd assume so. I don't even see how you connect what I've said remotely to the left-right oversimplification of political opinions, let alone with one of those sides.
cryptonector 7y ago
> but I think BSD (permissive for developers, maybe restrictive for users) vs. GPL (restrictive for developers, permissive for users) Strawman. MIT/BSD is not restrictive for users. When someone derives from my permissively-licensed code and doesn't share back with me? Not my problem, but theirs. They now have a legacy fork to refresh every so often at some non-trivial cost. If I'm maintaining a codebase for them to contribute, then they might be better off contributing. If my codebase is their secret sauce, well, good for them -- perhaps they should consider paying me to help them, and they are welcome to try, but it's not a requirement. It's all good. Now, if I'm building a project to monetize, I might not open source the secret sauce. The GPL wouldn't help me there anymore than BSD/MIT. So, what good is the GPL to me?
- Digital-Citizen 7y ago
  Neither the MIT X11 license (one should be careful to identify which MIT license is being talked about as MIT has used many licenses for software) nor the modified (or 3-clause) BSD license look out for patent treachery. For all the user knows, perhaps your organization holds patents which read on the software you're distributing and this program is a means to give them something that tempts users to run, modify, and share software landing them in a patent infringement lawsuit. It's great that you write and distribute free software, but if you insist on using a non-copylefted free software license the Apache 2.0 license is a better choice for users of your software. But it is also in user's interests to look out for derivative works because that means users of those derivative programs get software that respects their software freedom. Proprietary derivatives of non-copylefted free software means software that doesn't respect a user's software freedom.

jahewson 7y ago

People who have power over you are, by definition, already empowered. Whether or not you give them something for free isn't going to move the needle.

Quekid5 7y ago
"something" = "leverage". Disprove that. As a bonus point, leverage is exactly what you may be giving them by licensing with the BSD/MIT/... There's no guarantee that they'll gain leverage, but if they see and seize the opportunity then that's what they'll get. EDIT: The APL 2.0 is kind of interesting here because it doesn't really do that much over BSD/MIT/... except for the patent grant thing. The patent thing actually brings it much closer to 'acceptable' for me, personally, because a lot of instances of conglomerates exercising their power has been through software patents.
grumdan 7y ago
It does cement their power over you even further though. An individual project may not make an appreciable difference, but in aggregate, if lots of people make similar choices, it may have an impact.
wrsh07 7y ago
Easy counter example: cockroach labs & Amazon Why did cockroach decide on their new business license?
- threwawasy1228 7y ago
  I don't think that is a fair counter example since it isn't actually straight GPL and provides a different type of leverage than GPL does, which is what we were discussing. The Cockroach Community License[0] was created specifically to fit their needs, and it differs from GPL in several ways. [0] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/cockroachdb-community-license/ https://www.cockroachlabs.com/cockroachdb-community-license/
  - wrsh07 7y ago
    The parent I'm responding to is trying to suggest that giving entities more powerful than yourself (eg better funded) doesn't help them. That's obviously bs, and that's what I was responding to.

eitland 7y ago

> That's definitely a valid PoV, but you just have to realize/accept that it may empower people who have power over you. Newtons Equations has also empowered the powerful for a while now but I think we are still happy that they are available for free for everyone without any limitations.

jeena 7y ago
Nobody can take them, change them and close them and sell you a better version of them. So, I have no idea how you made the connection to MIT here.
- eitland 7y ago
  In the same way nobody can take your MIT program and close it. Create a better version? Sure. Make the better version closed? Sure. But close it? No. Same with math: once discovered and publish anyone can do anything with it.
Quekid5 7y ago
What? I'm really struggling to find the nugget of 'point' in there, but... what? Are you saying that Gravity is somehow biased toward powerful people? Are you saying that refraction is somehow biased toward powerful people? I'm left so confused by your comment. It's amazing -- hopefully in a good way!)
- cheerlessbog 7y ago
  > I'm left so confused by your comment. It's amazing -- hopefully in a good way!) This is such a great positive way to reply, kudos
- TuringTest 7y ago
  I believe etland might be referring to the knowledge provided by discovering the equations, rather than the natural phenomena themselves. But I may be wrong.
  - 7y ago

supernovae 7y ago

I read what you say and want to flip it around back at you - Aren't you just projecting your own power in lieu of your perceived loss of power? Even your framing of your market space projects a sense of power. GPL actually doesn't protect you from your fear. The AGPL does, but I don't know much that uses that.

jake_the_third 7y ago
Many years back, I bought an expensive android phone to discover that it did not support my native language. I have the necessary technical skills to add support for it, but because the phone was locked down (something enabled by permissive licenses but not the GPL), I couldn't fix the phone myself and ended up with a very expensive but useless brick. Corporate interests rarely align completely with your own, and this small difference can be very damaging to your interests. The GPL, while not perfect, alleviates some of the damage caused by this misalignment by ensuring that users remain in a position to address it.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  The problem is, in practice, the GPL doesn't assure as many rights to the user as it is claimed. The example of Android shows this clearly. While the base of Android is GPL and consequently freely available, nonetheless Google managed to mix it with enough proprietary parts, so that they could could block Huawai from selling their phones with Android. Of course, Huawai is able to build their own OS based on the open source parts of Android, but for all practical purposes it will be a separate OS.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    Only the kernel is GPL, AOSP is Apache.
    - _ph_ 7y ago
      Well, right. Thats my point. They have enough parts in "Android" which don't fall under GPL and thus they can keep them proprietary.

est31 7y ago

> I think BSD (permissive for developers, maybe restrictive for users) vs. GPL (restrictive for developers, permissive for users) is very similar to the Paradox of Tolerance in a way. It very much boils down to tolerance, yeah. I've made the experience that in the communities where permissive licenses are common, there is much larger tolerance for proprietary software and services than in communities that revolve around GPL. I personally don't care much about GPL vs permissive per se, but I do care about the four freedoms and see copyleft as neccessary evil that's needed in some instances to prevent proprietary takeovers.

madez 7y ago
The GPL is not self-serving; it is a tool to achieve a type of society, and that is the society you seem to enjoy, too. After all, by what else should be measure the permissive licences vs copyleft licences if not by their influence on society?
- est31 7y ago
  Are you one of those "GPL is socialism" people? You are misguided. Yes, there are lots of marxists/communists in the open source / free software community and most people in it lean left. But the GPL itself is compatible with a capitalist society. In fact, GPL can be the basis for making money with FLOSS software, by offering non-GPL'd commercial licenses. All the GPL ensures that if you want to make a proprietary fork of the software, its original author has to be made part of the equation. Some people see it as a tool to achieve communism and I think they are misguided in the view that the goal is desireable. The open source software they create is nevertheless a valuable and worthy contribution to mankind. You can't just reject someone's work because of idiotic ideology. As long as they share this view and allow me to have a productive working relationship with them on the open source component, I'm fine.
  - madez 7y ago
    > Are you one of those "GPL is socialism" people? No, not all. I don't even know why you'd assume so. I don't even see how you connect what I've said remotely to the left-right oversimplification of political opinions, let alone with one of those sides.

cryptonector 7y ago

> but I think BSD (permissive for developers, maybe restrictive for users) vs. GPL (restrictive for developers, permissive for users) Strawman. MIT/BSD is not restrictive for users. When someone derives from my permissively-licensed code and doesn't share back with me? Not my problem, but theirs. They now have a legacy fork to refresh every so often at some non-trivial cost. If I'm maintaining a codebase for them to contribute, then they might be better off contributing. If my codebase is their secret sauce, well, good for them -- perhaps they should consider paying me to help them, and they are welcome to try, but it's not a requirement. It's all good. Now, if I'm building a project to monetize, I might not open source the secret sauce. The GPL wouldn't help me there anymore than BSD/MIT. So, what good is the GPL to me?

Digital-Citizen 7y ago
Neither the MIT X11 license (one should be careful to identify which MIT license is being talked about as MIT has used many licenses for software) nor the modified (or 3-clause) BSD license look out for patent treachery. For all the user knows, perhaps your organization holds patents which read on the software you're distributing and this program is a means to give them something that tempts users to run, modify, and share software landing them in a patent infringement lawsuit. It's great that you write and distribute free software, but if you insist on using a non-copylefted free software license the Apache 2.0 license is a better choice for users of your software. But it is also in user's interests to look out for derivative works because that means users of those derivative programs get software that respects their software freedom. Proprietary derivatives of non-copylefted free software means software that doesn't respect a user's software freedom.