6 ms·

I'm not a big fan on GPL anymore. When I create some software I prefer the user of my software to have all freedoms including the freedom to embed it in closed

I'm not a big fan on GPL anymore. When I create some software I prefer the user of my software to have all freedoms including the freedom to embed it in closed source software.

emilsedgh 16y ago
Its not about gpl vs. bsd-like licenses. Its about free software vs. open source software. bsd-like licenses are still 'free'.
- _delirium 16y ago
  GPL-like licenses are still 'open' by OSI standards as well. So yeah, the permissive-license v. copyleft argument isn't the same one as the Free v. Open argument, though perhaps there's some correlation between what views people have on each one.
- bad_user 16y ago
  Wouldn't you hate it if you did something, like giving money to a poor fellow, and then people are using your good deed to market their ideology (like communism perhaps); even though you think it's wrong? Now imagine how some open-source authors feel.
bhickey 16y ago
Can you articulate your concern? Are you specifically objecting to the 'tivoisation' clause of the GPLv3, or has your opinion on the GPL changed, or something else? The spirit that you seem to describe is, I believe, embodied by the LGPLv2 (minus the clause that allows you to convert LGPL -> GPL.)
- zzzeek 16y ago
  I've been warned on many occasions that the LGPL is not trusted to cover dynamic languages like Python very well since its verbiage is specific to C linkers and compilers.
  - xiongchiamiov 16y ago
    Sure, but who writes in scripting languages in this day and age? I'm pretty sure they haven't produced anything of enough value that someone else would want to use their code.
SwellJoe 16y ago
And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. Amazing how people can have different priorities and different beliefs. (And, amazing how one can abuse the word "free" or "open" in either case to mean two very different things.)
- protomyth 16y ago
  > amazing how one can abuse the word "free" or "open" in > either case to mean two very different things It seems to happen a lot in technology and the naming of bills in congress. It has got to the point where I start to ignore the words. "Net Neutrality" is the latest phrase that has a lot of meanings depending on who you talk to, but has no actual technical or judicial meaning. I could accept a technical definition that has a meaning, but not this two word label that doesn't. For example, if I said "I was against port blocking or banning protocols except by the end user", it has some meaning. My definition of these weasel words (tis a shame open and free are among them) is if someone says the phrase "I support X" and it gives me no real knowledge of their actual beliefs.
- dwc 16y ago
  > And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open. I think that what you object to is that someone can take your code and make money using it in a closed source project, perhaps modifying it in the process. If that makes you unhappy then GPL will serve your desires better. But saying a BSD license won't keep your code open is not true. It may seem like a nit, but it's one that matters.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    It depends on how you define "open". For Stallman, one of the main goals of free software is the ability to get into your software and be able to fix bugs and port it to other platforms -- it all started with RMS getting stuck with a proprietary printer driver. All that BSD code that's been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products is no longer open. You can't get into OS X and fix bugs or port it to another platform. So even if the original code is still open, other distributions of that same code are not.
kiba 16y ago
I stopped caring and made my software public domain. Incidentally, nothing really happens until you become popular.
- stephth 16y ago
  As far as I understand it, the problem with public domain is it's not a license, but a meaning, and this meaning varies between countries. A completely permissive license (if well written) could be more permissive than PD in some parts of the world, since it's specific.
- dkersten 16y ago
  I agree, though I dislike public domain simply because in some countries it isn't recognized and becomes completely unusable. For that reason, I prefer an unresitrictive license like BSD/MIT, or better yet, something like the WTFPL[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
- billswift 16y ago
  With the way copyright has been mangled in the last 35 years, public domain may not be safe - I have seen several people commenting that there is no way, since the copyright changes in the late 1970s, to affirmatively put your work in the public domain. Because of that risk, the WTFPL - Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ , or an equivalent, is safer for potential users. Note that on the page I linked, it is pointed out that some non-Anglosphere countries didn't have a public domain in the first place.
  - anonymoushn 16y ago
    I generally use WTFPL for this reason. I find that licenses which attempt to reproduce in forks of the host do not promote freedom.
dedward 16y ago
Agreed. The cool thing about being the copyright holder is you are free to release things under as few or as many different terms as you want. I personally prefer to release software under the GPL initially, and then release under other licenses if I want to allow usage in those ways the GPL doesn't permit. Maybe that's a commercial deal with someone, maybe it's just changing the license to bsd, or maybe just making it public domain. What I can't stand are holy wars about licenses and this whole church of "GPL means you have to give back"... or anyone talking about the "spirit" of these projects. Copyright is copyright, and licenses are licenses, and if someone wants to do a project with multiple developers and not take care of handling copyright assignment issues (in other words, make a mess, or just let hte project become a GPL free-ride) then that's their choice....
- thyrsus 16y ago
  Do you refuse contributions (bug fixes/enhancements) the ownership of which is not explicitly assigned to you? What is the license status of those changes?
Jach 16y ago
I never really got this line of thought. "I want my users to have all these freedoms, and then the freedom to deny all these freedoms to their users of this same base." It always sounded like "I want these people to have the power of voting, and then have the power to restrict others from voting." Anyway, I went from GPL to BSD/MIT back to GPL (for "large" projects; small projects are public domain or MIT). I'd rather chain people with freedom while we have the copyright laws to do it than hope people will respect the freedoms I want others to have.
jackolas 16y ago
To be honest, I'd license my work in another license for someone other than the GPL if they asked me. I just don't like the idea of granting everyone the rights the BSD license allows for without at least asking first.

I'm not a big fan on GPL anymore. When I create some software I prefer the user of my software to have all freedoms including the freedom to embed it in closed source software.

emilsedgh 16y ago

Its not about gpl vs. bsd-like licenses. Its about free software vs. open source software. bsd-like licenses are still 'free'.

_delirium 16y ago
GPL-like licenses are still 'open' by OSI standards as well. So yeah, the permissive-license v. copyleft argument isn't the same one as the Free v. Open argument, though perhaps there's some correlation between what views people have on each one.
bad_user 16y ago
Wouldn't you hate it if you did something, like giving money to a poor fellow, and then people are using your good deed to market their ideology (like communism perhaps); even though you think it's wrong? Now imagine how some open-source authors feel.

bhickey 16y ago

Can you articulate your concern? Are you specifically objecting to the 'tivoisation' clause of the GPLv3, or has your opinion on the GPL changed, or something else? The spirit that you seem to describe is, I believe, embodied by the LGPLv2 (minus the clause that allows you to convert LGPL -> GPL.)

zzzeek 16y ago
I've been warned on many occasions that the LGPL is not trusted to cover dynamic languages like Python very well since its verbiage is specific to C linkers and compilers.
- xiongchiamiov 16y ago
  Sure, but who writes in scripting languages in this day and age? I'm pretty sure they haven't produced anything of enough value that someone else would want to use their code.

SwellJoe 16y ago

And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. Amazing how people can have different priorities and different beliefs. (And, amazing how one can abuse the word "free" or "open" in either case to mean two very different things.)

protomyth 16y ago
> amazing how one can abuse the word "free" or "open" in > either case to mean two very different things It seems to happen a lot in technology and the naming of bills in congress. It has got to the point where I start to ignore the words. "Net Neutrality" is the latest phrase that has a lot of meanings depending on who you talk to, but has no actual technical or judicial meaning. I could accept a technical definition that has a meaning, but not this two word label that doesn't. For example, if I said "I was against port blocking or banning protocols except by the end user", it has some meaning. My definition of these weasel words (tis a shame open and free are among them) is if someone says the phrase "I support X" and it gives me no real knowledge of their actual beliefs.
dwc 16y ago
> And I prefer my software to remain open no matter who works on it or distributes it. So, I use GPL. BSD license accomplishes that just fine. BSD licensed code has been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products for decades, and yet the original contribution remains open. I think that what you object to is that someone can take your code and make money using it in a closed source project, perhaps modifying it in the process. If that makes you unhappy then GPL will serve your desires better. But saying a BSD license won't keep your code open is not true. It may seem like a nit, but it's one that matters.
- wvenable 16y ago
  It depends on how you define "open". For Stallman, one of the main goals of free software is the ability to get into your software and be able to fix bugs and port it to other platforms -- it all started with RMS getting stuck with a proprietary printer driver. All that BSD code that's been taken, extended, modified and used in proprietary products is no longer open. You can't get into OS X and fix bugs or port it to another platform. So even if the original code is still open, other distributions of that same code are not.

kiba 16y ago

I stopped caring and made my software public domain. Incidentally, nothing really happens until you become popular.

stephth 16y ago
As far as I understand it, the problem with public domain is it's not a license, but a meaning, and this meaning varies between countries. A completely permissive license (if well written) could be more permissive than PD in some parts of the world, since it's specific.
dkersten 16y ago
I agree, though I dislike public domain simply because in some countries it isn't recognized and becomes completely unusable. For that reason, I prefer an unresitrictive license like BSD/MIT, or better yet, something like the WTFPL[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
billswift 16y ago
With the way copyright has been mangled in the last 35 years, public domain may not be safe - I have seen several people commenting that there is no way, since the copyright changes in the late 1970s, to affirmatively put your work in the public domain. Because of that risk, the WTFPL - Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ , or an equivalent, is safer for potential users. Note that on the page I linked, it is pointed out that some non-Anglosphere countries didn't have a public domain in the first place.
- anonymoushn 16y ago
  I generally use WTFPL for this reason. I find that licenses which attempt to reproduce in forks of the host do not promote freedom.

dedward 16y ago

Agreed. The cool thing about being the copyright holder is you are free to release things under as few or as many different terms as you want. I personally prefer to release software under the GPL initially, and then release under other licenses if I want to allow usage in those ways the GPL doesn't permit. Maybe that's a commercial deal with someone, maybe it's just changing the license to bsd, or maybe just making it public domain. What I can't stand are holy wars about licenses and this whole church of "GPL means you have to give back"... or anyone talking about the "spirit" of these projects. Copyright is copyright, and licenses are licenses, and if someone wants to do a project with multiple developers and not take care of handling copyright assignment issues (in other words, make a mess, or just let hte project become a GPL free-ride) then that's their choice....

thyrsus 16y ago
Do you refuse contributions (bug fixes/enhancements) the ownership of which is not explicitly assigned to you? What is the license status of those changes?

Jach 16y ago

I never really got this line of thought. "I want my users to have all these freedoms, and then the freedom to deny all these freedoms to their users of this same base." It always sounded like "I want these people to have the power of voting, and then have the power to restrict others from voting." Anyway, I went from GPL to BSD/MIT back to GPL (for "large" projects; small projects are public domain or MIT). I'd rather chain people with freedom while we have the copyright laws to do it than hope people will respect the freedoms I want others to have.

jackolas 16y ago

To be honest, I'd license my work in another license for someone other than the GPL if they asked me. I just don't like the idea of granting everyone the rights the BSD license allows for without at least asking first.