5 ms·
> It's to give user's freedom to inspect, modify and re-use the software. The GPL is this, but I believe it is something else, too. I believe that when you ma
by cr0sh 7y ago
> It's to give user's freedom to inspect, modify and re-use the software.
The GPL is this, but I believe it is something else, too.
I believe that when you make your code GPL, you are saying to others who want to use your code, or especially to extend it and publish those changes, that you want to be paid. How?
In code.
You are basically saying "Yes, go ahead and have fun with this work, but - if you want to change it and pass it on to others, you need to put those changes out there for me and others to use."
Pay me for my work in code. Don't want to pay me in code? Then you don't get to use my code.
I think that's a completely fair bargain, and it also ensures that a company can't fork your code, go their own way, market it as a better solution to your users while they continue to extend it - to the point where their stuff no longer works with your stuff, even if it still looks identical.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
Those words are often forgotten nowadays. And, while I give kudos to Microsoft's open source offerings and other recent gestures of similar merit, I cannot and will not forget their past, and I keep a wary eye on them just the same...
- icebraining 7y agoIt should be noted that the GPL requires you to pay forward , not back. You are under no obligation to release the code publicly or contribute to the original project.
- ghaff 7y agoThe parent comment as a whole made it pretty clear they were talking about modified code that is redistributed. (I can, of course, take code and modify it for internal use and I don't have obligations under the GPL.)
- icebraining 7y agoRedistribution doesn't mean public. I've worked for years extending A/LGPL code that we redistributed, yet much of it never saw the light of day, since our clients have no interest in publishing it (although they are free to do so, of course).
- ghaff 7y agoYou’re essentially working as contractors for the company in that case though. So you’re effectively part of the company and aren’t really distributing as the term is generally understood. Of course there is some ambiguity as there always is.
- icebraining 7y agoNo, there's no need for technicalities. The GPL only says you must distribute the source to the people to whom you have distributed binaries. It doesn't say you must publish it publicly.
- ghaff 7y agoI was assuming that if you were developing code for someone they would also get access to the sources. But you’re right. That’s not necessarily a given.
- icebraining 7y agoNo, they did get the sources. What I wrote is that you don't have to "release the code publicly or contribute to the original project." Obviously our clients (who got the sources) could have published them. But they have no incentive to do so.