4 ms·

I use the GPL, mostly due to its viral nature: if I release something as open source, I want it to stay that way, and not rely on the good will of whoever wants

I use the GPL, mostly due to its viral nature: if I release something as open source, I want it to stay that way, and not rely on the good will of whoever wants to incorporate it into his work, to contribute back. This certainly makes it harder - or even impossible - to use my projects in certain settings, but frankly, I'm fine with that. I'm even glad.

billswift 16y ago
You say, "I'm even glad." I have seen this sort of comment before, but what I see when I read them is "I'm petty, really petty."
- madhouse 16y ago
  Perhaps. Yet, I see nothing wrong with remaining in control of my software's future (at least in some way: I can make sure it remains free). And I see nothing wrong with having a smile over my face when I see people realize they can't take that freedom away from others. My priority is that what I've created to remain free, available to others, just like the huge amount of software I learned from. If someone wants to take that freedom away, and can't, I can't help but feel glad that freedom has been preserved.
  - billswift 16y ago
    The problem with your claim is that the software you created is still just as available to others even if third parties use it in proprietary software. All you are doing is making it unavailable to those who would otherwise be using it third-hand in such proprietary packages that can't be made because of licensing issues. You are not maximizing others' freedom, you are restricting it.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      I don't see this as a decrease in freedom over the default situation, though. If code is copyrighted, third parties can't use your code in their software, unless they reach a licensing agreement with you. I see GPLing my software as making a limited quid-pro-quo exception: you can use my code for free, without individually negotiating a license, but only if you do the same with your software. If that situation doesn't apply, then I'm happy to license the software in the normal manner, as one proprietary software vendor doing business with another one. My view is something like: If someone is writing a piece of proprietary software, they should understand what proprietary software licensing means, and be prepared to pay for a commercial license if they want to use someone else's code, just as they'd expect anyone else to pay to use their code.
      - madhouse 16y ago
        Well put, thanks for expressing the other half of my thoughts :)
    - madhouse 16y ago
      That is precisely what I want: if I released something as open source, I want it to stay that way. I do not want it to be used in proprietary software. Yes, I am restricting freedom in a way, but only in cases when someone wants to take those freedoms away. In the long run, I ensure that my software remains available to everyone who doesn't want to take that freedom away. I am happy to exclude those, who would take my work and build it into proprietary stuff.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  During the Unix wars, we lost about a decade of progress on BSD because it was on proprietary forks entombed in failing companies. I think we should all be glad that did not also happen to the GNU and Linux work. As for me, I GPL anything other than work for hire (which makes it not my decision). I don't contribute to MIT/BSD projects because that's just subsidizing a vendor who should be paying full price for the work. I haven't had to decide about AGPL so far.
cperciva 16y ago
if I release something as open source, I want it to stay that way You don't need the GPL to do this. Any open source license guarantees that open source code stays open source. What you (apparently) want is to make sure that if you release something as open source, other people's code will be open source.
- madhouse 16y ago
  I want derived works to remain GPL, yes. Furthermore, if say, I release something under the 2-clause BSD license, and hand over maintainership, the new maintainer can make any new versions closed source, since the BSD license permits that. Granted, I - or anyone - could take the last open source version and continue from there, but that doesn't change the fact, that the BSD license allows such a scenario. The GPL doesn't, which is why I prefer that over the rest.

billswift 16y ago

You say, "I'm even glad." I have seen this sort of comment before, but what I see when I read them is "I'm petty, really petty."

madhouse 16y ago
Perhaps. Yet, I see nothing wrong with remaining in control of my software's future (at least in some way: I can make sure it remains free). And I see nothing wrong with having a smile over my face when I see people realize they can't take that freedom away from others. My priority is that what I've created to remain free, available to others, just like the huge amount of software I learned from. If someone wants to take that freedom away, and can't, I can't help but feel glad that freedom has been preserved.
- billswift 16y ago
  The problem with your claim is that the software you created is still just as available to others even if third parties use it in proprietary software. All you are doing is making it unavailable to those who would otherwise be using it third-hand in such proprietary packages that can't be made because of licensing issues. You are not maximizing others' freedom, you are restricting it.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    I don't see this as a decrease in freedom over the default situation, though. If code is copyrighted, third parties can't use your code in their software, unless they reach a licensing agreement with you. I see GPLing my software as making a limited quid-pro-quo exception: you can use my code for free, without individually negotiating a license, but only if you do the same with your software. If that situation doesn't apply, then I'm happy to license the software in the normal manner, as one proprietary software vendor doing business with another one. My view is something like: If someone is writing a piece of proprietary software, they should understand what proprietary software licensing means, and be prepared to pay for a commercial license if they want to use someone else's code, just as they'd expect anyone else to pay to use their code.
    - madhouse 16y ago
      Well put, thanks for expressing the other half of my thoughts :)
  - madhouse 16y ago
    That is precisely what I want: if I released something as open source, I want it to stay that way. I do not want it to be used in proprietary software. Yes, I am restricting freedom in a way, but only in cases when someone wants to take those freedoms away. In the long run, I ensure that my software remains available to everyone who doesn't want to take that freedom away. I am happy to exclude those, who would take my work and build it into proprietary stuff.
prodigal_erik 16y ago
During the Unix wars, we lost about a decade of progress on BSD because it was on proprietary forks entombed in failing companies. I think we should all be glad that did not also happen to the GNU and Linux work. As for me, I GPL anything other than work for hire (which makes it not my decision). I don't contribute to MIT/BSD projects because that's just subsidizing a vendor who should be paying full price for the work. I haven't had to decide about AGPL so far.

cperciva 16y ago

if I release something as open source, I want it to stay that way You don't need the GPL to do this. Any open source license guarantees that open source code stays open source. What you (apparently) want is to make sure that if you release something as open source, other people's code will be open source.

madhouse 16y ago
I want derived works to remain GPL, yes. Furthermore, if say, I release something under the 2-clause BSD license, and hand over maintainership, the new maintainer can make any new versions closed source, since the BSD license permits that. Granted, I - or anyone - could take the last open source version and continue from there, but that doesn't change the fact, that the BSD license allows such a scenario. The GPL doesn't, which is why I prefer that over the rest.