7 ms·

You meant control over the users.

TallGuyShort 7y ago
I think it's mostly unfounded, but companies do avoid this for reasons other than wanting to directly control their users. I worked for a company where everything was Apache 2, BSD 3-clause, MIT, or similarly licensed. Since we distributed source regardless, this means less control over the users, even though it means they have the freedom to not pass it on to their own users. Our lawyers absolutely lost their shit at the suggestion that we include the GPL. Because a bunch of our customers absolutely lost their shit at the slightest hint of GPL, because they don't want to be sued for unintended virality.
- cxr 7y ago
  Hear that, folks? In a world that's increasingly focused on sustainability and funding for software development, programmers with business aspirations should take note: If you're working on something that you hope to (eventually?) make money from, but you also want to benefit from the collegial atmosphere of open source, then choose the GPL. This simple decision instantly eliminates a whole subset of would-be competitors, who you now don't have to worry about undermining your business or otherwise threatening your source of income while they rely on being able to use your own work against you, since the GPL automatically places your work in their do-not-touch category.
jimmaswell 7y ago
Forcing your users to have to GPL any of their code based on your code is controlling them more than releasing under a more sane permissive license. It's ironic that GPL is the true restriction of freedom for all the virtues it touts.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  The GPL is quite clear in the responsibilities you have: protecting freedom requires taking away the right to be able to curtail it.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    Protecting Stallman's narrow, weird definition of freedom that I don't agree with, sure.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      Freedom to appropriate and oppress is a weird way of using the word “freedom.”
rowanG077 7y ago
What? GPL forces SIGNIFICANTLY more control on users then for instance the MIT license.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  The GPL grants significantly more freedom to users. Users of MIT-licensed software don't necessarily even have the freedom to see the source code! All they're guaranteed is the ability to see a credit.
  - rowanG077 7y ago
    Developers are also users of a piece of software. GPL 3 restricts developers in insane ways where they are forced to contribute back any changes and even worse then that it basically infects all code that it touches. It's almost impossible for a commercial product to use GPL 3 licensed software at all. This is basically tyranny.
    - cxr 7y ago
      > Developers are also users of a piece of software. This is true, and yet your conversation partner still has the winning answer. The point is that, notwithstanding these restrictions on developers—some of whom have the desire to be able to take without reciprocation—the freedom guaranteed by the GPL to users more than makes up for it. We're essentially talking about local versus global maxima here. > It's almost impossible for a commercial product to use GPL 3 licensed software at all. On the contrary—GPL is very beneficial, for the reasons I just laid out in another comment[1]. GPL-licensed code is not ipso facto any harder to commercialize than if you were to make the end result available under MIT. It's arguably even easier, since your competitors will have a more difficult time competing with you than if you'd chosen MIT. As Eben Moglen once put it, if you're trying to decide on a license, then by all means you should go with a permissive one—if you're what you're looking for is "a really good license for your competitor to use"[2]. You need only look to history then compare and contrast it with the industry's current preoccupation with funding the development of free and open source software. Red Hat/Cygnus were largely built on top of GPL code. Meanwhile, today's developers entrenched in the GitHub culture, with its permissive-first obsession with licenses like the MIT, have been bamboozled into working against their own interests by giving away their strongest bargaining chip when they decide to go with the flow instead of choosing the GPL. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20899781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20899781 2. https://lwn.net/Articles/235397/ https://lwn.net/Articles/235397/

I think it's mostly unfounded, but companies do avoid this for reasons other than wanting to directly control their users. I worked for a company where everything was Apache 2, BSD 3-clause, MIT, or similarly licensed. Since we distributed source regardless, this means less control over the users, even though it means they have the freedom to not pass it on to their own users. Our lawyers absolutely lost their shit at the suggestion that we include the GPL. Because a bunch of our customers absolutely lost their shit at the slightest hint of GPL, because they don't want to be sued for unintended virality.

cxr 7y ago
Hear that, folks? In a world that's increasingly focused on sustainability and funding for software development, programmers with business aspirations should take note: If you're working on something that you hope to (eventually?) make money from, but you also want to benefit from the collegial atmosphere of open source, then choose the GPL. This simple decision instantly eliminates a whole subset of would-be competitors, who you now don't have to worry about undermining your business or otherwise threatening your source of income while they rely on being able to use your own work against you, since the GPL automatically places your work in their do-not-touch category.

jimmaswell 7y ago

Forcing your users to have to GPL any of their code based on your code is controlling them more than releasing under a more sane permissive license. It's ironic that GPL is the true restriction of freedom for all the virtues it touts.

saagarjha 7y ago
The GPL is quite clear in the responsibilities you have: protecting freedom requires taking away the right to be able to curtail it.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  Protecting Stallman's narrow, weird definition of freedom that I don't agree with, sure.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    Freedom to appropriate and oppress is a weird way of using the word “freedom.”

rowanG077 7y ago

What? GPL forces SIGNIFICANTLY more control on users then for instance the MIT license.

CydeWeys 7y ago
The GPL grants significantly more freedom to users. Users of MIT-licensed software don't necessarily even have the freedom to see the source code! All they're guaranteed is the ability to see a credit.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  Developers are also users of a piece of software. GPL 3 restricts developers in insane ways where they are forced to contribute back any changes and even worse then that it basically infects all code that it touches. It's almost impossible for a commercial product to use GPL 3 licensed software at all. This is basically tyranny.
  - cxr 7y ago
    > Developers are also users of a piece of software. This is true, and yet your conversation partner still has the winning answer. The point is that, notwithstanding these restrictions on developers—some of whom have the desire to be able to take without reciprocation—the freedom guaranteed by the GPL to users more than makes up for it. We're essentially talking about local versus global maxima here. > It's almost impossible for a commercial product to use GPL 3 licensed software at all. On the contrary—GPL is very beneficial, for the reasons I just laid out in another comment[1]. GPL-licensed code is not ipso facto any harder to commercialize than if you were to make the end result available under MIT. It's arguably even easier, since your competitors will have a more difficult time competing with you than if you'd chosen MIT. As Eben Moglen once put it, if you're trying to decide on a license, then by all means you should go with a permissive one—if you're what you're looking for is "a really good license for your competitor to use"[2]. You need only look to history then compare and contrast it with the industry's current preoccupation with funding the development of free and open source software. Red Hat/Cygnus were largely built on top of GPL code. Meanwhile, today's developers entrenched in the GitHub culture, with its permissive-first obsession with licenses like the MIT, have been bamboozled into working against their own interests by giving away their strongest bargaining chip when they decide to go with the flow instead of choosing the GPL. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20899781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20899781 2. https://lwn.net/Articles/235397/ https://lwn.net/Articles/235397/