4 ms·

I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL. Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where

by jarin 16y ago

I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL. Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications). I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.

dman 16y ago
Can you be more specific about the problem ?
- jarin 16y ago
  It seems to me that the GPL is used more as a weapon than a shield. Either for some kind of selfish moral superiority, or in cases like this, where one person with a questionable agenda can shut down someone else's project: "Before anyone grabs a pitchfork and/or torch and starts marching toward Cupertino, it's worth noting that VLC's removal from the App Store has nothing to do with Apple's preferences. Rather, it's a direct result of one man's misguided crusade... a man who, (perhaps) coincidentally, is an employee of Nokia, one of Apple's competitors in the mobile space." http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/ http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-stor... For most application code, I think the non-copyleft licenses do a great job of preserving the spirit of open source software without shackling developers to a rigid doctrine they may not fully agree with.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    > It seems to me that the GPL is used more as a weapon than a shield. I think that's because it's news when it's a weapon but when it's a shield it just works. The majority of developers aren't trying to subvert the license; they work within the terms. You only hear about the license when somebody has broken the terms.
  - mtvartia 16y ago
    That article is full of it. It essentially wants to agitate a lynch mob against the messenger, implying a conspiracy by Rémi and his current employer, without a clue about FSF's role in the incident, while disregarding any responsibility of Apple to provide its paying customers access to the software they want, by the terms they can get it. The copyright infringement notice is not targeted to the group that created the iOS version of VLC, and their project is not being shut down. There is nothing that prevents those people developing that application and distributing it via any channel they choose, as far as that distribution channel complies with terms of GPL. Why is it so hard to see that it is Apple which prevents having such distribution channels? I am amazed how these people assume all the liability, support and freedom from the FOSS developers, who work without compensation, while happily accepting all the restrictions from their vendor, who they pay dearly. How is it that I see talk about "how much I hate GPL" and "how GPL is bad for businesses/community/users/whatsoever", when an alternative of having these pieces of software distributed with GPL license is to not have them at all? The author of the software chose the license for a purpose. Without the license, choosing of which the creator has no obligations from the users whatsoever, the users will not have the software at their disposal at all. Instead of groups of whiny self-entitled users and lynch mobs, we need people who are willing to work against restrictions imposed by businesses, and users who see themselves as members of a community and not just as consumers of others' free work. That said, I think non-copyleft licenses like BSD are just fine. But at the end, it is the authors' privilege to choose whichever license they find suitable.
  - dman 16y ago
    Sorry for the late reply but here goes - It appears that the GPL works fabulously well in environments where there are few restrictions on how code is developed, modified and executed. In closed ecosystems the GPL's copyleft clauses make the code hard to use (there are server based loopholes). I think the unwieldiness of the GPL in closed environments is a net win because it creates incentives to moving to more open systems. The FSF / GPL were started in an era where the PC environment was similar to the mobile environments of today. Over the period of their existence they have contributed to pushing the world in a direction where developer tools are freely available and the idea of spare time hacking is no longer a fantasy. I am hopeful that someone will create some mobile software under the GPL which is so useful that it creates the wedge required to open the mobile app landscape such that there are no restrictions on what languages are used to develop and how the apps get deployed. In short its not the GPL thats broken here, its the closed nature of the system in question (iOS). In the short term this might require some activism and sadly at times this might result in things like VLC being removed. Disclaimer - I am not affiliated with the FSF, Nokia, Apple, VLC or any other party in question.
burgerbrain 16y ago
"I have a big problem with the GPL." Then don't use GPL'd code. End of discussion.
- jarin 16y ago
  I don't, whenever possible. I certainly never use GPLed code that I know I'll need to modify later (for example, I probably won't ever modify the MongoDB source code). It's also the reason I stopped hacking on Diaspora after the initial excitement wore off and I actually read the licensing terms. Well, that and their ill-advised copyright aggregation policy, which was apparently set up to allow for future dual-licensing (which I thought was pretty hypocritical).
rimantas 16y ago
I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL. Why do you hate it? It's OK, I am disliking GPL (maybe not GPL itself, but the politics around it) more and more. My take is: GPL was created when a lot was different. The main product was source code, the main users were programmers/admins. The bulk of the source was for tools/infrastructure. Now we have millions of users who could not care less about source code and modifying it. All they want is to get an app and use it, period. GPL does not fit well into this scenario, IMHO.
naner 16y ago
The intent of the GPL is not to spur innovation.
quadhome 16y ago
Aren't large portions of Webkit under the LGPL? Though, perhaps the differences in innovation in the BSD kernels vs. Linux is demonstrative?
- jarin 16y ago
  The LGPL is much different than the GPL.
  - quadhome 16y ago
    The LGPL is copyleft too. The comment was about copyleft licenses.
    - jarin 16y ago
      The LGPL is copyleft in the sense that making changes to a library that uses LGPL copies the license; software that links to that library is free to have whatever license the developers choose. I have no problem with that.
      - quadhome 16y ago
        You said that Webkit didn't have a license that required contribution back and used it as an example to highlight the difference in innovation. But, it does. So, it's not a good example for your argument. That was all I was pointing out. What is it about infrastructural applications that makes copyleft licenses more appropriate (and visa-versa)? That is, what makes them spur innovation in the infrastructural roles and hinder it in end-user roles?
        jarin 16y ago
        With open-source infrastructure software like web servers and databases, the software is not a product. There's no disadvantage to being forced to publish your modifications, and the license does not infect your end-user software that runs on them (the actual products). The problem with the GPL in regards to user-facing software is that a developer using GPLed libraries is forced to publish ALL of his source code, even when he has not made any modifications to the library itself. In this situation there are no advantages for the developer (and serious disadvantages, even if you're not trying to sell the software for a profit but just want to maintain your rights to the source code), and there are also no advantages for the library project itself. This is why, for example, the core engine of MongoDB is GPL licensed, but the MongoDB drivers are Apache licensed. If the drivers were also GPL licensed, developers would likely just choose to use one of the many alternatives with more palatable licenses.

by jarin 16y ago

dman 16y ago

Can you be more specific about the problem ?

jarin 16y ago
It seems to me that the GPL is used more as a weapon than a shield. Either for some kind of selfish moral superiority, or in cases like this, where one person with a questionable agenda can shut down someone else's project: "Before anyone grabs a pitchfork and/or torch and starts marching toward Cupertino, it's worth noting that VLC's removal from the App Store has nothing to do with Apple's preferences. Rather, it's a direct result of one man's misguided crusade... a man who, (perhaps) coincidentally, is an employee of Nokia, one of Apple's competitors in the mobile space." http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/ http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-stor... For most application code, I think the non-copyleft licenses do a great job of preserving the spirit of open source software without shackling developers to a rigid doctrine they may not fully agree with.
- wvenable 16y ago
  > It seems to me that the GPL is used more as a weapon than a shield. I think that's because it's news when it's a weapon but when it's a shield it just works. The majority of developers aren't trying to subvert the license; they work within the terms. You only hear about the license when somebody has broken the terms.
- mtvartia 16y ago
  That article is full of it. It essentially wants to agitate a lynch mob against the messenger, implying a conspiracy by Rémi and his current employer, without a clue about FSF's role in the incident, while disregarding any responsibility of Apple to provide its paying customers access to the software they want, by the terms they can get it. The copyright infringement notice is not targeted to the group that created the iOS version of VLC, and their project is not being shut down. There is nothing that prevents those people developing that application and distributing it via any channel they choose, as far as that distribution channel complies with terms of GPL. Why is it so hard to see that it is Apple which prevents having such distribution channels? I am amazed how these people assume all the liability, support and freedom from the FOSS developers, who work without compensation, while happily accepting all the restrictions from their vendor, who they pay dearly. How is it that I see talk about "how much I hate GPL" and "how GPL is bad for businesses/community/users/whatsoever", when an alternative of having these pieces of software distributed with GPL license is to not have them at all? The author of the software chose the license for a purpose. Without the license, choosing of which the creator has no obligations from the users whatsoever, the users will not have the software at their disposal at all. Instead of groups of whiny self-entitled users and lynch mobs, we need people who are willing to work against restrictions imposed by businesses, and users who see themselves as members of a community and not just as consumers of others' free work. That said, I think non-copyleft licenses like BSD are just fine. But at the end, it is the authors' privilege to choose whichever license they find suitable.
- dman 16y ago
  Sorry for the late reply but here goes - It appears that the GPL works fabulously well in environments where there are few restrictions on how code is developed, modified and executed. In closed ecosystems the GPL's copyleft clauses make the code hard to use (there are server based loopholes). I think the unwieldiness of the GPL in closed environments is a net win because it creates incentives to moving to more open systems. The FSF / GPL were started in an era where the PC environment was similar to the mobile environments of today. Over the period of their existence they have contributed to pushing the world in a direction where developer tools are freely available and the idea of spare time hacking is no longer a fantasy. I am hopeful that someone will create some mobile software under the GPL which is so useful that it creates the wedge required to open the mobile app landscape such that there are no restrictions on what languages are used to develop and how the apps get deployed. In short its not the GPL thats broken here, its the closed nature of the system in question (iOS). In the short term this might require some activism and sadly at times this might result in things like VLC being removed. Disclaimer - I am not affiliated with the FSF, Nokia, Apple, VLC or any other party in question.

burgerbrain 16y ago

"I have a big problem with the GPL." Then don't use GPL'd code. End of discussion.

jarin 16y ago
I don't, whenever possible. I certainly never use GPLed code that I know I'll need to modify later (for example, I probably won't ever modify the MongoDB source code). It's also the reason I stopped hacking on Diaspora after the initial excitement wore off and I actually read the licensing terms. Well, that and their ill-advised copyright aggregation policy, which was apparently set up to allow for future dual-licensing (which I thought was pretty hypocritical).

rimantas 16y ago

I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL. Why do you hate it? It's OK, I am disliking GPL (maybe not GPL itself, but the politics around it) more and more. My take is: GPL was created when a lot was different. The main product was source code, the main users were programmers/admins. The bulk of the source was for tools/infrastructure. Now we have millions of users who could not care less about source code and modifying it. All they want is to get an app and use it, period. GPL does not fit well into this scenario, IMHO.

naner 16y ago

The intent of the GPL is not to spur innovation.

quadhome 16y ago

Aren't large portions of Webkit under the LGPL? Though, perhaps the differences in innovation in the BSD kernels vs. Linux is demonstrative?

jarin 16y ago
The LGPL is much different than the GPL.
- quadhome 16y ago
  The LGPL is copyleft too. The comment was about copyleft licenses.
  - jarin 16y ago
    The LGPL is copyleft in the sense that making changes to a library that uses LGPL copies the license; software that links to that library is free to have whatever license the developers choose. I have no problem with that.
    - quadhome 16y ago
      You said that Webkit didn't have a license that required contribution back and used it as an example to highlight the difference in innovation. But, it does. So, it's not a good example for your argument. That was all I was pointing out. What is it about infrastructural applications that makes copyleft licenses more appropriate (and visa-versa)? That is, what makes them spur innovation in the infrastructural roles and hinder it in end-user roles?
      - jarin 16y ago
        With open-source infrastructure software like web servers and databases, the software is not a product. There's no disadvantage to being forced to publish your modifications, and the license does not infect your end-user software that runs on them (the actual products). The problem with the GPL in regards to user-facing software is that a developer using GPLed libraries is forced to publish ALL of his source code, even when he has not made any modifications to the library itself. In this situation there are no advantages for the developer (and serious disadvantages, even if you're not trying to sell the software for a profit but just want to maintain your rights to the source code), and there are also no advantages for the library project itself. This is why, for example, the core engine of MongoDB is GPL licensed, but the MongoDB drivers are Apache licensed. If the drivers were also GPL licensed, developers would likely just choose to use one of the many alternatives with more palatable licenses.