3 ms·

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/
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Software, in general, has a lot more people using it than writing it. Successful software, anyway. And super permissive licenses like MIT hurt developers too, because it means I oftentimes can't see the source code that someone else has modified, even though it would help me a lot to be able to do so. With GPL-licensed software, I am always guaranteed this freedom.
    - jimmaswell 7y ago
      Those modifications would probably never have been made if the license was GPL because they would have just rewritten their own entire thing from scratch or licensed something else.

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/
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Software, in general, has a lot more people using it than writing it. Successful software, anyway. And super permissive licenses like MIT hurt developers too, because it means I oftentimes can't see the source code that someone else has modified, even though it would help me a lot to be able to do so. With GPL-licensed software, I am always guaranteed this freedom.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    Those modifications would probably never have been made if the license was GPL because they would have just rewritten their own entire thing from scratch or licensed something else.