7 ms·

Don't learn emacs because it's GPL, or because of who wrote it. Learn emacs because it's a great tool.

by lliamander 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago
Learning great tools that aren’t under the GPL may leak to lock-in and pain in the future.
- klyrs 7y ago
  As an OSS nerd working in today's corporate culture, I can assure you that GPL is its own form of lock-in. I had to abandon some of my favorite tools when I left university.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > I had to abandon some of my favorite tools when I left university. Tools, or libraries? The distinction I'm making here is between code that gets distributed with the final product, and code that only runs on your machine or just internally in the corporate network. I can understand a company not wanting to intermix GPL code with proprietary code that is shipped to customers, but not being able to use GPL software internally is a different matter and would be very strange.
    - senderista 7y ago
      When I was at Amazon we were forbidden from using any GPLv3/AGPL software, including recent versions of GCC and Emacs (there was a special exception for Linux).
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        That sounds horrible :(
      - mattl 7y ago
        Linux is GPLv2, so it would have been okay because of that I'm guessing.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        I never saw nor heard of that rule being applied against developers using Emacs. And of course there wouldn't be a special excemption for Linux; Linux wouldn't need to be exempted from a ban on a license it doesn't have.
        senderista 7y ago
        I'm not sure how much it was enforced, but apparently unlike you, I took the time to read the Open Source Policy, and I stand by what I wrote as of 2014. Why don't you do the same before you downvote? PS Why don't you check which version of GCC is currently used in Brazil? It was years out of date when I was there for the reasons I described. PPS I was wrong about Linux being licensed under GPLv3: it is GPLv2. I apologize for not checking that before I posted.
        catalogia 7y ago
        I know what the rule said. What I never heard of was anybody actually caring about developers using emacs. I do not presently work there. PS 'green' users can't downvote.
      - lliamander 7y ago
        O_o My sympathies. I've been able to use Emacs in every corporate setting I've worked in.
    - klyrs 7y ago
      Libraries are tools. But like, if UI was my job I'd be delighted to adapt inkscape for my company's oss offerings, but Legal says to stay away from GPL.
  - strenholme 7y ago
    Well, I have as part of my job duties scanned dependencies of source code to make sure it didn’t inadvertently include any GPL-licensed libraries. The GPL does not control use, it controls distribution. So, using Emacs and GCC as one’s toolchain does not require a company’s code being made open source. However, using a GPL licensed library “taints” any and all code which touches it. With the complex mazes of dependencies modern NPM/Node, Java/Maven, Python/Pip, and what not have, there’s a non-zero chance that some dependency of a dependency of a dependency is GPL code without the company knowing about it, which puts the company at risk of being sued if they make the code depend on that GPL library, no matter how indirectly. Anything a GPL library touches in a bundled executable taints the entire code, forcing it all to be open source. This is a serious problems for companies selling software (including hardware that uses embedded software). There are commercial products which exist to make sure code is not GPL-tainted.
    - kragen 7y ago
      > This is a serious problems for companies selling software (including hardware that uses embedded software). There are commercial products which exist to make sure code is not GPL-tainted. Many companies selling hardware that uses embedded software find it easier to simply comply with the GPL, thus protecting the users' rights to some extent. The cost of compliance is far smaller than the benefits available from drawing on the world of free software. If we can get more free-software developers to change the licenses of new versions of their software to the GPL, we can increase those benefits and influence more companies to choose GPL compliance instead of GPL avoidance. Even some companies that sell software choose GPL compliance. Unfortunately, the GPLv2 is not strong enough to prevent "Tivoization", in which the users can obtain copies of the source code but cannot install modified versions on their own devices, even though theoretically they own those devices — in these cases the benefits of free software become impossible for the users to obtain in practice. This is a major reason why the GPLv3 was written.
    - mikeeusa5 7y ago
      >Anything a GPL library touches in a bundled executable taints the entire code, forcing it all to be open source. How is it that I can tell that you are a layman idiot, and also a white? Ask yourself: is my code that links to a GPL library a non-separable work. And is my code that links to a GPL library derived from that library? No and No. Sure: you may be sued. But the copyright holder of the GPL'd library will not likely win. These are simple concepts. Are you white programmers dumb idiots? Note: Copyright holders of GPL'd software don't even sue blatant violators such as GRSecurity and Brad Spengler ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c... ) who create violating non-separable directly derivative works, adding no-redistribution-or-else additional restrictions to the work in blatant violation of section 6 of the license (GPLv2).
  - mikeeusa 7y ago
    Wage-slave think's he's still an OSS nerd...
- lliamander 7y ago
  Oh, the GPL certainly provides value to me as a user. But that value would mean very little if Emacs were not a fantastic tool.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Sure, a garbage tool licensed under the GPL isn’t all that useful.
- bch 7y ago
  Like vi? X11? Apache httpd? GPL is great, but not the only license that worthwhile software is written in...
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    There's a couple of licenses that have generally been OK; GPL isn't necessarily the only one that secures this particular guarantee.
wiz21c 7y ago
Came for the GPL, stayed for the editor :-)
imron 7y ago
Don't learn emacs, because vi is better ;-)
- lliamander 7y ago
  Here, let me show you spacemacs...

Don't learn emacs because it's GPL, or because of who wrote it. Learn emacs because it's a great tool.

saagarjha 7y ago

Learning great tools that aren’t under the GPL may leak to lock-in and pain in the future.

klyrs 7y ago
As an OSS nerd working in today's corporate culture, I can assure you that GPL is its own form of lock-in. I had to abandon some of my favorite tools when I left university.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > I had to abandon some of my favorite tools when I left university. Tools, or libraries? The distinction I'm making here is between code that gets distributed with the final product, and code that only runs on your machine or just internally in the corporate network. I can understand a company not wanting to intermix GPL code with proprietary code that is shipped to customers, but not being able to use GPL software internally is a different matter and would be very strange.
  - senderista 7y ago
    When I was at Amazon we were forbidden from using any GPLv3/AGPL software, including recent versions of GCC and Emacs (there was a special exception for Linux).
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      That sounds horrible :(
    - mattl 7y ago
      Linux is GPLv2, so it would have been okay because of that I'm guessing.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      I never saw nor heard of that rule being applied against developers using Emacs. And of course there wouldn't be a special excemption for Linux; Linux wouldn't need to be exempted from a ban on a license it doesn't have.
      - senderista 7y ago
        I'm not sure how much it was enforced, but apparently unlike you, I took the time to read the Open Source Policy, and I stand by what I wrote as of 2014. Why don't you do the same before you downvote? PS Why don't you check which version of GCC is currently used in Brazil? It was years out of date when I was there for the reasons I described. PPS I was wrong about Linux being licensed under GPLv3: it is GPLv2. I apologize for not checking that before I posted.
        catalogia 7y ago
        I know what the rule said. What I never heard of was anybody actually caring about developers using emacs. I do not presently work there. PS 'green' users can't downvote.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      O_o My sympathies. I've been able to use Emacs in every corporate setting I've worked in.
  - klyrs 7y ago
    Libraries are tools. But like, if UI was my job I'd be delighted to adapt inkscape for my company's oss offerings, but Legal says to stay away from GPL.
- strenholme 7y ago
  Well, I have as part of my job duties scanned dependencies of source code to make sure it didn’t inadvertently include any GPL-licensed libraries. The GPL does not control use, it controls distribution. So, using Emacs and GCC as one’s toolchain does not require a company’s code being made open source. However, using a GPL licensed library “taints” any and all code which touches it. With the complex mazes of dependencies modern NPM/Node, Java/Maven, Python/Pip, and what not have, there’s a non-zero chance that some dependency of a dependency of a dependency is GPL code without the company knowing about it, which puts the company at risk of being sued if they make the code depend on that GPL library, no matter how indirectly. Anything a GPL library touches in a bundled executable taints the entire code, forcing it all to be open source. This is a serious problems for companies selling software (including hardware that uses embedded software). There are commercial products which exist to make sure code is not GPL-tainted.
  - kragen 7y ago
    > This is a serious problems for companies selling software (including hardware that uses embedded software). There are commercial products which exist to make sure code is not GPL-tainted. Many companies selling hardware that uses embedded software find it easier to simply comply with the GPL, thus protecting the users' rights to some extent. The cost of compliance is far smaller than the benefits available from drawing on the world of free software. If we can get more free-software developers to change the licenses of new versions of their software to the GPL, we can increase those benefits and influence more companies to choose GPL compliance instead of GPL avoidance. Even some companies that sell software choose GPL compliance. Unfortunately, the GPLv2 is not strong enough to prevent "Tivoization", in which the users can obtain copies of the source code but cannot install modified versions on their own devices, even though theoretically they own those devices — in these cases the benefits of free software become impossible for the users to obtain in practice. This is a major reason why the GPLv3 was written.
  - mikeeusa5 7y ago
    >Anything a GPL library touches in a bundled executable taints the entire code, forcing it all to be open source. How is it that I can tell that you are a layman idiot, and also a white? Ask yourself: is my code that links to a GPL library a non-separable work. And is my code that links to a GPL library derived from that library? No and No. Sure: you may be sued. But the copyright holder of the GPL'd library will not likely win. These are simple concepts. Are you white programmers dumb idiots? Note: Copyright holders of GPL'd software don't even sue blatant violators such as GRSecurity and Brad Spengler ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c... ) who create violating non-separable directly derivative works, adding no-redistribution-or-else additional restrictions to the work in blatant violation of section 6 of the license (GPLv2).
- mikeeusa 7y ago
  Wage-slave think's he's still an OSS nerd...
lliamander 7y ago
Oh, the GPL certainly provides value to me as a user. But that value would mean very little if Emacs were not a fantastic tool.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Sure, a garbage tool licensed under the GPL isn’t all that useful.
bch 7y ago
Like vi? X11? Apache httpd? GPL is great, but not the only license that worthwhile software is written in...
- saagarjha 7y ago
  There's a couple of licenses that have generally been OK; GPL isn't necessarily the only one that secures this particular guarantee.

wiz21c 7y ago

Came for the GPL, stayed for the editor :-)

imron 7y ago

Don't learn emacs, because vi is better ;-)

lliamander 7y ago
Here, let me show you spacemacs...