4 ms·

GNU is part of the problem. If you depend on GPL software, you depend on something which isn’t yours, in that your behavior is restricted.

jdnenej 7y ago
You are only restricted from restricting others. That sounds very fair to me.
- coldtea 7y ago
  The core MIT/GPL licensed code is always going to be free. The license restricts people in what they can do with _their_ modification of that code. E.g. whether they can package _their_ modifications of it as closed. Sounds like a restriction to me.
  - tremon 7y ago
    As the recipient of an MIT-licensed binary, you have no rights. As the recipient of a GPL-licensed binary, you have the right to ask for the accompanying source code. Sounds like freedom to me.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      Nobody ever defined freedom as in "what somebody can additionally demand when given something for free".
      - jdnenej 7y ago
        This debate comes up all the time. Does freedom refer to my freedom or everyone's freedom. My freedom to shoot you is limited by your freedom to not be harmed. My freedoms have been limited but this is very fair.
naringas 7y ago
but it's restricted such that you and whomever you depend on must collaborate on the shared code
- dasil003 7y ago
  You don’t have to collaborate, you are free to fork and reject submissions.
  - naringas 7y ago
    I meant to say that neither party can close off the other. that's the restriction
m463 7y ago
I think you are mistaken. GPL places no restrictions on how you USE the software. You can use it for any purpose. You can modify it, adding or deleting code in any way you want. If you don't redistribute the software, it ends there. The GPL only comes into play if you redistribute the software. You then have the responsibility to pass on the source code with any modifications you've made so that subsequent users have the same rights you do. Other licenses like BSD and MIT do not have these restrictions. You could fork and close the software, distributing binaries that do things the users might not agree with but would not be able to discern and counteract.
- jay_kyburz 7y ago
  I've been debating GPL vs MIT in my head a bit lately. I've always thought that when I do open source my projects they would be GPL because I always liked the idea that if I am going to share, you have to share as well. In the last little while I have been wondering if the negative side effects of forcing others to be open outweigh the benefits. I don't really have a point. I just think its interesting.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I used to be pro-MIT, now I'm increasingly leaning towards licensing my stuff under GPL. Yes, this means some of that stuff won't be usable in a typical commercial settings (and there were times where I had to roll my own implementation of some functionality at work, because the only good library available was under GPL). But I want to live in a world GPL tries to make happen. MIT & friends are licenses that benefit developers. GPL family focuses on benefits to end users.

jdnenej 7y ago

You are only restricted from restricting others. That sounds very fair to me.

coldtea 7y ago
The core MIT/GPL licensed code is always going to be free. The license restricts people in what they can do with _their_ modification of that code. E.g. whether they can package _their_ modifications of it as closed. Sounds like a restriction to me.
- tremon 7y ago
  As the recipient of an MIT-licensed binary, you have no rights. As the recipient of a GPL-licensed binary, you have the right to ask for the accompanying source code. Sounds like freedom to me.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Nobody ever defined freedom as in "what somebody can additionally demand when given something for free".
    - jdnenej 7y ago
      This debate comes up all the time. Does freedom refer to my freedom or everyone's freedom. My freedom to shoot you is limited by your freedom to not be harmed. My freedoms have been limited but this is very fair.

naringas 7y ago

but it's restricted such that you and whomever you depend on must collaborate on the shared code

dasil003 7y ago
You don’t have to collaborate, you are free to fork and reject submissions.
- naringas 7y ago
  I meant to say that neither party can close off the other. that's the restriction

m463 7y ago

I think you are mistaken. GPL places no restrictions on how you USE the software. You can use it for any purpose. You can modify it, adding or deleting code in any way you want. If you don't redistribute the software, it ends there. The GPL only comes into play if you redistribute the software. You then have the responsibility to pass on the source code with any modifications you've made so that subsequent users have the same rights you do. Other licenses like BSD and MIT do not have these restrictions. You could fork and close the software, distributing binaries that do things the users might not agree with but would not be able to discern and counteract.

jay_kyburz 7y ago
I've been debating GPL vs MIT in my head a bit lately. I've always thought that when I do open source my projects they would be GPL because I always liked the idea that if I am going to share, you have to share as well. In the last little while I have been wondering if the negative side effects of forcing others to be open outweigh the benefits. I don't really have a point. I just think its interesting.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I used to be pro-MIT, now I'm increasingly leaning towards licensing my stuff under GPL. Yes, this means some of that stuff won't be usable in a typical commercial settings (and there were times where I had to roll my own implementation of some functionality at work, because the only good library available was under GPL). But I want to live in a world GPL tries to make happen. MIT & friends are licenses that benefit developers. GPL family focuses on benefits to end users.