18 ms·

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy a

Exactly. Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. It assumes that people are naturally untrustworthy and thus forces them to act in a way the creators of GPL see as the right way. Because of how the GPL licenses are worded, especially insane versions like the AGPL, everything they touch may be affected negatively. MIT and BSD style licenses on the other hand assume the best in people, and gives them the real freedom to do with code whatever they want.

skore 16y ago
You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?
- tzs 16y ago
  Could you rephrase that in terms that aren't nonsensical in the context of software licensing, such as "bring down the system" and "prevents corruption"?
- samatman 16y ago
  Possibly for the same reason GPL advocates complain about more restrictive licensing than the GPL. "Hey, why can't I view and improve your source code? No fair!" "Hey, why can't I improve, compile, and sell your program? No fair!" disclaimer: I'm fairly license-neutral and think people should choose based on what's good for their project.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  I feel the same way about the GPL, in that it dictates very strong boundaries about what can and cannot be done with the code you are distributing. I don't personally feel that the tradeoff is acceptable to achieve a goal of preventing corruption, as you say, and it can be argued that the license indeed does prevent many freedoms to do what you will. If I write software and distribute it as open-source on the Internet, I'm not interested in (a) suing those who don't follow my license to the letter à la gpl-violations.org, and (b) requiring you to release the source code to your product simply because you use mine. For those reasons, I will never apply the GPL to any of the software that I start, period. It is my not job, as a software developer, to impose my beliefs upon you. The religious fervor in the GPL debates springs an interesting comparison to mind: the GPL is similar to publishing a book about Christ, and requiring those who read it to adopt Christianity. Viral open-source and the majority of the "free software beliefs" are just that, beliefs; I respect everyone's right to believe differently, and I will not mandate a belief in my software. Why is a negative opinion about the GPL automatically assumed by you to be trolling? It does have flaws, and the GP simply expressed his distaste of them (perhaps not in the best way).
  - timtadh 16y ago
    The Free Software movement is a religious movement and the GPL is an expression of their belief system. See my comment above and: http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-movement-as-re http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-m...
    - eney 16y ago
      Nonsense! The Free Software movement is a political movement informed by philosophical and ethical values.
  - guelo 16y ago
    You're being deliberately trollish bringing in religion, it's a dumb insult and I could turn around and call your arguments religious and it wouldn't have any meaning either. Why is GPL so hard to understand? Plain and simple, GPL is an attack on closed source systems. And if you knew anything about computing history in the last 20 years you should be extremely grateful to RMS and what the license has accomplished.
    - jedsmith 16y ago
      > You're being deliberately trollish Because I refuse to walk the party line on Free Software? > bringing in religion, it's a dumb insult and I could turn around and call your arguments religious and it wouldn't have any meaning either. How on earth is religion an insult? The proponents of Free Software believe very strongly in Free Software, and fight for it with zeal and fervor. The similarity to religious debates of history is very clear to me. If anything, I elevated Free Software with the comparison by placing it in a category deserving of special treatment. Every right-thinking country on our planet has figured out that people are going to believe what they're going to believe, and government does not get to dictate what individuals can believe. So it is with the Free Software philosophy -- even if you don't agree with Stallman's philosophy (I only agree with some), you are entitled to believe in it because you have that freedom. Your implication, which somewhat betrays your personal belief, is that there is a negative connotation that comes with the mere mention of religion, which I find equally offensive. > Why is GPL so hard to understand? Plain and simple, GPL is an attack on closed source systems. Maybe. Publishing your source in the public domain is also an attack on closed-source systems. The binary attitude of proponents of Free Software is something that I wince at every time I see it demonstrated. > And if you knew anything about computing history in the last 20 years You're right, my opinion obviously implies that I'm a moron. How dare I speak up about an opinion? > you should be extremely grateful to RMS and what the license has accomplished. I don't owe Free Software, or Richard Stallman, anything. Whatever advances have been made in computing, Free Software didn't wander into my life and make me who I am. It made computing what it is. That being said, I am aware of what the GPL and the GNU Project itself was designed to do, and what it did. I firmly believe that without the GNU Project, we'd be in a much different place than we are today with computing. I have tremendous respect for Richard Stallman, and merely disagree with some of his tenets. I would hope that he respects my disagreement, and would be willing to try to convince me of his beliefs if given the opportunity (no, no comparison to religion there). Just like you are allowed to believe in Free Software, so I am allowed to disagree with some of Stallman's beliefs, and I am allowed to choose not to use the GPL. My desire to not use the GPL is not an automatic admitting that I'm history-dumb and have no idea of its purpose, intent, or legacy.
- nolok 16y ago
  Because freedom also means freedom to use my code and keep it to yourself if you want to. There isn't any corruption in that. Tons of software here are using bsd/mit licensed code and not releasing their change, that has nothing to do with corruption (or you don't understand what corruption is, go read a definition). Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is under gpl too. You lose your freedom to chose a license. You lose your freedom to keep changes to yourself if you release the resulting binary (why ? because you want to). You lose your freedom to use other piece of code that are not gpl compatible. I have nothing against the gpl and I use tons of software using it, but it is a fact that it cuts down some of your freedoms compared to other licenses.
  - cscheid 16y ago
    The GPL does _NOT_ prevent redistribution, please don't spread more incorrect information. It prevents _redistribution without redistribution of source_. You're still free to get GPL code, change it yourself, and never release it again. Licenses like the AGPL were created in part because of this problem; some folks think that, morally speaking, code running on a server behaves like distributed code, and should be available. But for example: you're absolutely allowed to take GPL code, change it yourself, keep the source private, and run a web 2.0 business on top of that source code.
    - nolok 16y ago
      Where in my message did I say it prevented redistribution ? Can you quote the sentence that made you understand that ? (this is a serious question) It's not what I meant, and I don't thing it's what I've written either. If anything, it actually forces redistribution in case some might not want to (when you release a binary but want the sources to remain yours).
  - jancona 16y ago
    You can modify GPL code and keep it to yourself. What you can't do is modify it and distribute the resultant binary without also releasing the modified source.
- dan00 16y ago
  "The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption." Sure, a license will ensure that people cooperate, write good code and are interested in the quality of a project. Do you really think that the reason that people are doing this is mostly an implication of a license?
- halostatue 16y ago
  Share-Alike licenses like the GNU GPL are excellent licenses and are worthy of consideration for whole categories of software. What they aren't, however, is 'free' by any rational or sane definition of the word. They impose restrictions -- and carry those restrictions downstream -- on the use of the software that increases the theoretical range of people who would do things with the software. But those restrictions in and of themselves do not increase "freedom" for anyone. Like I said, there's good reasons to choose these sorts of licenses. What I object to are the semantic games and occasionally outright lies and histrionics of GNU GPL supporters.
  - ajross 16y ago
    So maybe it would be nice if they wrote up an essay somewhere detailing exactly what they mean by "freedom" so that no one gets confused. Maybe they could call it the "The Free Software Definition". http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html I'll leave aside the issue of whether or not this matches what you consider a "rational" or "sane" definition of "free" and just point out that it makes pretty good sense to me.
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  The point is that it does take away some freedoms, that the BSD license does not take away. This keeps getting brought up because people say that the GPL is about "freedom" when the freedom it guarantees is rather explicitly freedom for the code itself at the expense of some of the users of the software. The BSD license does not take away these freedoms of the user - users can pass on the same code to other users with significantly more restriction, but the BSD License itself does not take away those freedoms. It keeps coming up because its frustrating to hear people making emotional appeals to "freedom" instead of acknowledging the tradeoff for code freedom instead of human freedom they make. Its not that the choice itself is bad, its that not acknowledging it explicitly is disingenuous.
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    And if you criticize it in even the lightest way, the religious fervor I mentioned before brings every free software supporter out to impale you. I can't tell you how many times I've been called a corporate shill or, quote, "M$ fanboi" because I don't agree with the GPL on principle. This thread has devolved into the same kind of thing, and to be honest, I'm surprised I'm still participating in it. Just watching the karma on my previous comments swing wildly back and forth has been enough of an amusement this morning. I don't begrudge anybody their beliefs, but holy cow, give me the same respect.
- btipling 16y ago
  I was not trolling. The GPL nominally stands for freedom but yet the means by which it forces restrictions is the opposite of freedom. I say if you want people to do something, do so by setting an example, not by writing weasel-worded legalese that ties peoples hands. Write code, release it under MIT, and let people do what they want with your code, and by doing that you're setting an example and encouraging others to do the same. You'll also encourage participation by businesses who would like to make use of your code in their proprietary system and everyone benefits when they contribute back because they don't have to worry about the stringent restrictions of the GPL.
- leot 16y ago
  Possible uses of "free" (as in freedom/libre) ... There's free for whom/what: - the developer's freedom - the user's freedom ... and there are also multiple time-scales of "free" (much as there are multiple timescales of "wealthy"): - free for me proximally (when I've already got the code) - free for me in the more distant future (when I might not) For users, the GPL ensures both free-now and free-later. For developers, one could argue that the GPL makes the trade-off of reduced freedom now (freedom to do what you want with the code you've currently got) for more freedom later (freedom here to at least get the code and then do what you want with it). The strong case-in-point here is when a developer modifies some code, and then releases it, and would like to have the freedom to later build on contributions by others. Is the trade-off worth it? This is now something of an empirical question.
Fice 16y ago
GPL ensures freedom. Also there is a great article by Bruce Perens about why Microsoft is hostile to GPL and why they sponsor non-copyleft open source: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3762786/Bruce-Perens-Microsoft-and-Apache---Whats-the-Angle.htm http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3762786/Br...
- tzs 16y ago
  That article is too riddle errors to be great. Consider his paragraph on OOXML. He says that ODF does the same work as OOXML in 1/10th the size. First of all, it does not do the same work. OOXML includes hundreds of pages covering spreadsheet formulas, giving mathematical definitions of them, sample input and output, and detailed descriptions. ODF omits spreadsheet formulas. ODF, as passed by ISO, barely deserves to be called a "specification", as there is virtually no chance that two people independently implementing from the spec alone would come up with interoperable documents. It is more accurately thought of as a guide to help understand the OpenOffice source code--which is what you actually would use as your spec if you were trying to write a real-world ODF application. Second, even for those areas where they do the same work, the OOXML spec is more precise. That accounts for much of its size. For instance, consider how dates should be stored. Both ODF and OOXML list specific calendars that must be supported. In the ODF spec, this is a simple list, just giving a short informal name for each. In the OOXML spec, they give a table that gives the short informal name, but also gives the full official name, along with a complete citation to the official definition of that calendar. Or consider password protected documents. All ODF tells you is where to store the password. (It might also say it should be hashed). OOXML covers that, but also tells you what hash formats and encryption systems must be supported, and for each of those cites the appropriate standard.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    > First of all, it does not do the same work. OOXML includes hundreds of pages covering spreadsheet formulas, giving mathematical definitions of them, sample input and output, and detailed descriptions It's very detailed, down to mandating that you reproduce some old bugs with certain dates that come from Excel.
cosgroveb 16y ago
I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license. How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  > Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I really hate this attitude. Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. Edit: Wow, three downvotes within 30 seconds for appealing to working together instead of segregating computing into those who agree with your license and those who do not. This comment wasn't even about the GPL, it was about the OP's demonstrated attitude (and, importantly, not about the OP himself). If you're voting me down, at least man up and disagree with me with prose. It's things like this that make me wonder why I spend so much time contributing to HN.
  - fossuser 16y ago
    The point of the GPL is to ensure future collaborative development is possible with anyone who has the software. It exists because of people taking software and incorporating it into proprietary programs that force others to reinvent the wheel when unnecessary. Essentially I agree with you that we are best served by putting our capabilities towards improvment and the goals of the GPL align directly with protecting that idea.
  - tspiteri 16y ago
    cosgroveb: Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. jedsmith: I really hate this attitude. Isn't the point of the Internet to bring developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. I really can't see what this has to do with cosgroveb's comment, which is saying that a GPL program is not taking anything at all away. When you quote "Don't like .. your own then.", I think you are taking it out of context. The whole paragraph reads: cosgroveb: How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I take this to mean that if you can't use code under the GPL license, you are exactly in the same situation as if the code is unavailable, and you are not worse off. So the GPL code has taken nothing away.
_delirium 16y ago
Does your post have anything to do with the subject of the article or the comment you're replying to (Microsoft banning GPL'd apps on its platforms), or was this just a convenient opportunity for a generic anti-GPL rant? It seems unlikely that Microsoft's decision has anything to do with objecting to restrictive licenses, anyway, since proprietary apps are not being banned, not even proprietary apps with restrictive EULAs.
jcromartie 16y ago
MIT and BSD warm my heart. GPL makes me paranoid and brings to mind images of seedy paranoid people. Maybe that's all the GPL FUD implanted in my mind by big corporations talking... but maybe not? I don't know but I have never been inclined to license anything under GPL.
timwiseman 16y ago
"Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. " The only freedom the GPL takes away, or even could take away, is freedom that you never had. Remember, you have no right to view code, modify, or distribute software unless you get that right by either being given it or buying it from the creator. BSD-style software simply gives these things to you as a gift, and is in a sense more free than the GPL. Closed source software on the other hand can make it difficult or impossible to do any of those things and the licensing terms if you get any of those rights are often very stringent and exacting. The GPL strikes a middle grand, it offers you these rights, but in exchange you must agree to share any changes you do make to it. I, for one, find this a very good trade off indeed if that is all the author will charge me.
- koko775 16y ago
  Ah, but that's the thing - it is a trade-off. While both the GPL and BSD (and other Free Software licenses) are certainly better than closed-source, the GPL is a promise to the user at the expense of the developer (a reasonable expense, to be sure), whereas the BSD and BSD-like licenses are promises to the developer, perhaps at some expense to the user (i.e. if something uses it it's not guaranteed to be Free Software). Given that most people are developers, not users, I myself prefer BSD-style licenses. That said, I also think the GPL keeps developers honest and is healthy for the FOSS ecosystem as well.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > Given that most people are developers, not users In what universe?
    - koko775 16y ago
      In the universe where I accidentally transpose words. I meant that using BSD is better for developers than for users, I prefer to release code under licenses more permissive than the GPL.
      - 16y ago
cabalamat 16y ago
> Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to take away other people's freedom to use modified versions of the software.
rbanffy 16y ago
Let me put it in simple words. GPL is not about freedom for developers. It's about freedom for users. MIT and BSD-like languages don't care about user rights. They don't even care that much about the rights of programmers. All they demand is some form of recognition. GPL, on the other hand, allows you to build upon the work of others, provided you respect their wishes as to how you should use their work - that you don't disrespect your users and provide them with the same rights you received. As was pointed out elsewhere, nobody is forcing you to stand on the shoulders of giants. You may as well stand on the ground and reinvent your wheels.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  s/languages/licenses/

skore 16y ago

You're probably just trolling, but it needs to be said every time: The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption. If you enjoy the freedoms of MIT and BSD style licenses - why do you complain about the GPL? It seems that it only takes "freedoms" away that you don't appear to be interested in anyways?

tzs 16y ago
Could you rephrase that in terms that aren't nonsensical in the context of software licensing, such as "bring down the system" and "prevents corruption"?
samatman 16y ago
Possibly for the same reason GPL advocates complain about more restrictive licensing than the GPL. "Hey, why can't I view and improve your source code? No fair!" "Hey, why can't I improve, compile, and sell your program? No fair!" disclaimer: I'm fairly license-neutral and think people should choose based on what's good for their project.
jedsmith 16y ago
I feel the same way about the GPL, in that it dictates very strong boundaries about what can and cannot be done with the code you are distributing. I don't personally feel that the tradeoff is acceptable to achieve a goal of preventing corruption, as you say, and it can be argued that the license indeed does prevent many freedoms to do what you will. If I write software and distribute it as open-source on the Internet, I'm not interested in (a) suing those who don't follow my license to the letter à la gpl-violations.org, and (b) requiring you to release the source code to your product simply because you use mine. For those reasons, I will never apply the GPL to any of the software that I start, period. It is my not job, as a software developer, to impose my beliefs upon you. The religious fervor in the GPL debates springs an interesting comparison to mind: the GPL is similar to publishing a book about Christ, and requiring those who read it to adopt Christianity. Viral open-source and the majority of the "free software beliefs" are just that, beliefs; I respect everyone's right to believe differently, and I will not mandate a belief in my software. Why is a negative opinion about the GPL automatically assumed by you to be trolling? It does have flaws, and the GP simply expressed his distaste of them (perhaps not in the best way).
- timtadh 16y ago
  The Free Software movement is a religious movement and the GPL is an expression of their belief system. See my comment above and: http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-movement-as-re http://blog.hackthology.com/interpreting-the-free-software-m...
  - eney 16y ago
    Nonsense! The Free Software movement is a political movement informed by philosophical and ethical values.
- guelo 16y ago
  You're being deliberately trollish bringing in religion, it's a dumb insult and I could turn around and call your arguments religious and it wouldn't have any meaning either. Why is GPL so hard to understand? Plain and simple, GPL is an attack on closed source systems. And if you knew anything about computing history in the last 20 years you should be extremely grateful to RMS and what the license has accomplished.
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    > You're being deliberately trollish Because I refuse to walk the party line on Free Software? > bringing in religion, it's a dumb insult and I could turn around and call your arguments religious and it wouldn't have any meaning either. How on earth is religion an insult? The proponents of Free Software believe very strongly in Free Software, and fight for it with zeal and fervor. The similarity to religious debates of history is very clear to me. If anything, I elevated Free Software with the comparison by placing it in a category deserving of special treatment. Every right-thinking country on our planet has figured out that people are going to believe what they're going to believe, and government does not get to dictate what individuals can believe. So it is with the Free Software philosophy -- even if you don't agree with Stallman's philosophy (I only agree with some), you are entitled to believe in it because you have that freedom. Your implication, which somewhat betrays your personal belief, is that there is a negative connotation that comes with the mere mention of religion, which I find equally offensive. > Why is GPL so hard to understand? Plain and simple, GPL is an attack on closed source systems. Maybe. Publishing your source in the public domain is also an attack on closed-source systems. The binary attitude of proponents of Free Software is something that I wince at every time I see it demonstrated. > And if you knew anything about computing history in the last 20 years You're right, my opinion obviously implies that I'm a moron. How dare I speak up about an opinion? > you should be extremely grateful to RMS and what the license has accomplished. I don't owe Free Software, or Richard Stallman, anything. Whatever advances have been made in computing, Free Software didn't wander into my life and make me who I am. It made computing what it is. That being said, I am aware of what the GPL and the GNU Project itself was designed to do, and what it did. I firmly believe that without the GNU Project, we'd be in a much different place than we are today with computing. I have tremendous respect for Richard Stallman, and merely disagree with some of his tenets. I would hope that he respects my disagreement, and would be willing to try to convince me of his beliefs if given the opportunity (no, no comparison to religion there). Just like you are allowed to believe in Free Software, so I am allowed to disagree with some of Stallman's beliefs, and I am allowed to choose not to use the GPL. My desire to not use the GPL is not an automatic admitting that I'm history-dumb and have no idea of its purpose, intent, or legacy.
nolok 16y ago
Because freedom also means freedom to use my code and keep it to yourself if you want to. There isn't any corruption in that. Tons of software here are using bsd/mit licensed code and not releasing their change, that has nothing to do with corruption (or you don't understand what corruption is, go read a definition). Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is under gpl too. You lose your freedom to chose a license. You lose your freedom to keep changes to yourself if you release the resulting binary (why ? because you want to). You lose your freedom to use other piece of code that are not gpl compatible. I have nothing against the gpl and I use tons of software using it, but it is a fact that it cuts down some of your freedoms compared to other licenses.
- cscheid 16y ago
  The GPL does _NOT_ prevent redistribution, please don't spread more incorrect information. It prevents _redistribution without redistribution of source_. You're still free to get GPL code, change it yourself, and never release it again. Licenses like the AGPL were created in part because of this problem; some folks think that, morally speaking, code running on a server behaves like distributed code, and should be available. But for example: you're absolutely allowed to take GPL code, change it yourself, keep the source private, and run a web 2.0 business on top of that source code.
  - nolok 16y ago
    Where in my message did I say it prevented redistribution ? Can you quote the sentence that made you understand that ? (this is a serious question) It's not what I meant, and I don't thing it's what I've written either. If anything, it actually forces redistribution in case some might not want to (when you release a binary but want the sources to remain yours).
- jancona 16y ago
  You can modify GPL code and keep it to yourself. What you can't do is modify it and distribute the resultant binary without also releasing the modified source.
dan00 16y ago
"The freedom that the GPL takes away is the freedom to bring down the system. It keeps people in check and prevents corruption." Sure, a license will ensure that people cooperate, write good code and are interested in the quality of a project. Do you really think that the reason that people are doing this is mostly an implication of a license?
halostatue 16y ago
Share-Alike licenses like the GNU GPL are excellent licenses and are worthy of consideration for whole categories of software. What they aren't, however, is 'free' by any rational or sane definition of the word. They impose restrictions -- and carry those restrictions downstream -- on the use of the software that increases the theoretical range of people who would do things with the software. But those restrictions in and of themselves do not increase "freedom" for anyone. Like I said, there's good reasons to choose these sorts of licenses. What I object to are the semantic games and occasionally outright lies and histrionics of GNU GPL supporters.
- ajross 16y ago
  So maybe it would be nice if they wrote up an essay somewhere detailing exactly what they mean by "freedom" so that no one gets confused. Maybe they could call it the "The Free Software Definition". http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html I'll leave aside the issue of whether or not this matches what you consider a "rational" or "sane" definition of "free" and just point out that it makes pretty good sense to me.
moxiemk1 16y ago
The point is that it does take away some freedoms, that the BSD license does not take away. This keeps getting brought up because people say that the GPL is about "freedom" when the freedom it guarantees is rather explicitly freedom for the code itself at the expense of some of the users of the software. The BSD license does not take away these freedoms of the user - users can pass on the same code to other users with significantly more restriction, but the BSD License itself does not take away those freedoms. It keeps coming up because its frustrating to hear people making emotional appeals to "freedom" instead of acknowledging the tradeoff for code freedom instead of human freedom they make. Its not that the choice itself is bad, its that not acknowledging it explicitly is disingenuous.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  And if you criticize it in even the lightest way, the religious fervor I mentioned before brings every free software supporter out to impale you. I can't tell you how many times I've been called a corporate shill or, quote, "M$ fanboi" because I don't agree with the GPL on principle. This thread has devolved into the same kind of thing, and to be honest, I'm surprised I'm still participating in it. Just watching the karma on my previous comments swing wildly back and forth has been enough of an amusement this morning. I don't begrudge anybody their beliefs, but holy cow, give me the same respect.
btipling 16y ago
I was not trolling. The GPL nominally stands for freedom but yet the means by which it forces restrictions is the opposite of freedom. I say if you want people to do something, do so by setting an example, not by writing weasel-worded legalese that ties peoples hands. Write code, release it under MIT, and let people do what they want with your code, and by doing that you're setting an example and encouraging others to do the same. You'll also encourage participation by businesses who would like to make use of your code in their proprietary system and everyone benefits when they contribute back because they don't have to worry about the stringent restrictions of the GPL.
leot 16y ago
Possible uses of "free" (as in freedom/libre) ... There's free for whom/what: - the developer's freedom - the user's freedom ... and there are also multiple time-scales of "free" (much as there are multiple timescales of "wealthy"): - free for me proximally (when I've already got the code) - free for me in the more distant future (when I might not) For users, the GPL ensures both free-now and free-later. For developers, one could argue that the GPL makes the trade-off of reduced freedom now (freedom to do what you want with the code you've currently got) for more freedom later (freedom here to at least get the code and then do what you want with it). The strong case-in-point here is when a developer modifies some code, and then releases it, and would like to have the freedom to later build on contributions by others. Is the trade-off worth it? This is now something of an empirical question.

Fice 16y ago

GPL ensures freedom. Also there is a great article by Bruce Perens about why Microsoft is hostile to GPL and why they sponsor non-copyleft open source: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3762786/Bruce-Perens-Microsoft-and-Apache---Whats-the-Angle.htm http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3762786/Br...

tzs 16y ago
That article is too riddle errors to be great. Consider his paragraph on OOXML. He says that ODF does the same work as OOXML in 1/10th the size. First of all, it does not do the same work. OOXML includes hundreds of pages covering spreadsheet formulas, giving mathematical definitions of them, sample input and output, and detailed descriptions. ODF omits spreadsheet formulas. ODF, as passed by ISO, barely deserves to be called a "specification", as there is virtually no chance that two people independently implementing from the spec alone would come up with interoperable documents. It is more accurately thought of as a guide to help understand the OpenOffice source code--which is what you actually would use as your spec if you were trying to write a real-world ODF application. Second, even for those areas where they do the same work, the OOXML spec is more precise. That accounts for much of its size. For instance, consider how dates should be stored. Both ODF and OOXML list specific calendars that must be supported. In the ODF spec, this is a simple list, just giving a short informal name for each. In the OOXML spec, they give a table that gives the short informal name, but also gives the full official name, along with a complete citation to the official definition of that calendar. Or consider password protected documents. All ODF tells you is where to store the password. (It might also say it should be hashed). OOXML covers that, but also tells you what hash formats and encryption systems must be supported, and for each of those cites the appropriate standard.
- Natsu 16y ago
  > First of all, it does not do the same work. OOXML includes hundreds of pages covering spreadsheet formulas, giving mathematical definitions of them, sample input and output, and detailed descriptions It's very detailed, down to mandating that you reproduce some old bugs with certain dates that come from Excel.

cosgroveb 16y ago

I'm not going to comment on whether GPL style licenses actually have the effect of promoting freedom like they say, but I don't see at all how they take it away. An author is free to write code and distribute it under the GPL. Likewise anyone else is free to fork it, or use it in their own codebase so long as they honor the terms of the license. How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then.

jedsmith 16y ago
> Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I really hate this attitude. Isn't one of the advantages of the Internet bringing developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. Edit: Wow, three downvotes within 30 seconds for appealing to working together instead of segregating computing into those who agree with your license and those who do not. This comment wasn't even about the GPL, it was about the OP's demonstrated attitude (and, importantly, not about the OP himself). If you're voting me down, at least man up and disagree with me with prose. It's things like this that make me wonder why I spend so much time contributing to HN.
- fossuser 16y ago
  The point of the GPL is to ensure future collaborative development is possible with anyone who has the software. It exists because of people taking software and incorporating it into proprietary programs that force others to reinvent the wheel when unnecessary. Essentially I agree with you that we are best served by putting our capabilities towards improvment and the goals of the GPL align directly with protecting that idea.
- tspiteri 16y ago
  cosgroveb: Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. jedsmith: I really hate this attitude. Isn't the point of the Internet to bring developers together to work on things? Can't we put our collective capabilities toward improving things instead of rewriting them from scratch simply because they're not our favorite license or favorite language? Gnote springs to mind. I really can't see what this has to do with cosgroveb's comment, which is saying that a GPL program is not taking anything at all away. When you quote "Don't like .. your own then.", I think you are taking it out of context. The whole paragraph reads: cosgroveb: How does that take away anyone's freedom? Don't like the terms of an author's library? Go write your own then. I take this to mean that if you can't use code under the GPL license, you are exactly in the same situation as if the code is unavailable, and you are not worse off. So the GPL code has taken nothing away.

_delirium 16y ago

Does your post have anything to do with the subject of the article or the comment you're replying to (Microsoft banning GPL'd apps on its platforms), or was this just a convenient opportunity for a generic anti-GPL rant? It seems unlikely that Microsoft's decision has anything to do with objecting to restrictive licenses, anyway, since proprietary apps are not being banned, not even proprietary apps with restrictive EULAs.

jcromartie 16y ago

MIT and BSD warm my heart. GPL makes me paranoid and brings to mind images of seedy paranoid people. Maybe that's all the GPL FUD implanted in my mind by big corporations talking... but maybe not? I don't know but I have never been inclined to license anything under GPL.

timwiseman 16y ago

"Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away. " The only freedom the GPL takes away, or even could take away, is freedom that you never had. Remember, you have no right to view code, modify, or distribute software unless you get that right by either being given it or buying it from the creator. BSD-style software simply gives these things to you as a gift, and is in a sense more free than the GPL. Closed source software on the other hand can make it difficult or impossible to do any of those things and the licensing terms if you get any of those rights are often very stringent and exacting. The GPL strikes a middle grand, it offers you these rights, but in exchange you must agree to share any changes you do make to it. I, for one, find this a very good trade off indeed if that is all the author will charge me.

koko775 16y ago
Ah, but that's the thing - it is a trade-off. While both the GPL and BSD (and other Free Software licenses) are certainly better than closed-source, the GPL is a promise to the user at the expense of the developer (a reasonable expense, to be sure), whereas the BSD and BSD-like licenses are promises to the developer, perhaps at some expense to the user (i.e. if something uses it it's not guaranteed to be Free Software). Given that most people are developers, not users, I myself prefer BSD-style licenses. That said, I also think the GPL keeps developers honest and is healthy for the FOSS ecosystem as well.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > Given that most people are developers, not users In what universe?
  - koko775 16y ago
    In the universe where I accidentally transpose words. I meant that using BSD is better for developers than for users, I prefer to release code under licenses more permissive than the GPL.
    - 16y ago

cabalamat 16y ago

> Also GPL style licenses are a virus that while they promote freedom, in reality they take it away The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to take away other people's freedom to use modified versions of the software.

rbanffy 16y ago

Let me put it in simple words. GPL is not about freedom for developers. It's about freedom for users. MIT and BSD-like languages don't care about user rights. They don't even care that much about the rights of programmers. All they demand is some form of recognition. GPL, on the other hand, allows you to build upon the work of others, provided you respect their wishes as to how you should use their work - that you don't disrespect your users and provide them with the same rights you received. As was pointed out elsewhere, nobody is forcing you to stand on the shoulders of giants. You may as well stand on the ground and reinvent your wheels.

rbanffy 16y ago
s/languages/licenses/