8 ms·

Licensing should absolutely be considered. In fact copyleft is one of the main reasons I'd go with Linux over BSD anytime. If I am going to invest my precious

Licensing should absolutely be considered. In fact copyleft is one of the main reasons I'd go with Linux over BSD anytime. If I am going to invest my precious free time into software development, I want to guarantee to my users that my software will always remain free, (as in freedom). There's also a community aspect to the BSDs that I strongly don't align with, which is the sort of 'practical, above the fray' mentality that seems to disregard all political/real-world happenings around privacy, encryption, patents, censorship etc. and instead focus purely on the code. To the point of praising any piece of closed-source that has a bit of BSD in it. While this is perfectly valid short-term, I do think that a movement that goes beyond code and has some ideological foundations is needed.

tomxor 7y ago
> I want to guarantee to my users that my software will always remain free [...] I always found this argument for GPL a little uncomfortable because of what it implies... let's be more precise: the existing code you publish whether using GPL or BSD will always remain free (it is irrevocably free); copyleft makes a distinction for freedom of derivatives i.e GPL forces people to make all future code free as well, this is about enforcing future investment not remaining free. To be clear I'm not dogmatic about either, I think both copyleft and permissive licenses have their place - it's simply subjective - some software feels more suited to GPL and others more suited to BSD.
dazzawazza 7y ago
"Licensing should absolutely be considered", I agree but for all the opposite reasons. I release all my code under MIT/BSD as I do not want anyone, at all, for any reason, to not be able to use my code, for good or for bad as defined by me. I also prefer the BSD community as it lacks the hubris of "a greater mission" that the GPL fosters leading to this notion of good and bad. Plurality of thought, use and outcomes are a good thing.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  Just wanted to point out that the GPL isn't really about 'good'/'bad' morality choices, in fact one of the pillars of copyleft is that it does not make such subjective choices. If that wasn't the case, companies like IBM wouldn't be able to use GPL'd software, as they famously weren't able with Crockford's "don't do evil" license. The GPL is really about guarantees. You rely on guarantees every day to be able to go about your day. People like me just wish to extend certain guarantees, (not warranty), to the software we write.
_ph_ 7y ago
Even with lets say BSD-licensed code, the code you publish and maintain stays free. There is only the possiblitly that some entity maintains their private fork of your code and distributes that. But that doesn't change the state of the freedom of the code you publish. Also, it is extremely unlikely, that a company does significant changes to a well-maintained code and doesn't push them back upstream, as this reduces their maintenance effort. Yet, if you want to completely rule out the possiblity of that "propriatary fork", one could amend the license so that the distributor has to include the sources. This is a legitimate request. If one says: "but that is what the GPL does", that is not correct. The blog posted by the parent poster clearly lists a lot of problems with the variations of the GPL license. The LGPL license too much assumes you are using C, and the GPL of course requires you to relicense your own code just to be able to use a GPL-ed library.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  GPL does exactly that, prevents the distribution of proprietary forks. And yes, the GPL does require you to release all your code if you want to use a GPL'd library. It's not "just" a library. The library is presumably needed for your program to function. If yes, there's noting wrong with the author of that library requiring you pass on the same guarantees with your software that you were given by them when you decided to use their library, which they spent their precious time building.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    If you had read my post carefully, I was explicitly stating that the GPL does that. But it doesn't exactly that. As I wrote, it imposes a lot of unrelated restrictions to the code usage. And yes, for myself I consider it an unacceptable demand, that I change the license of code unrelated to the library I am using, just because that library wants to impose that. My code might even be more free than the GPL code I would be using, but that doesn't matter to the GPL. And for that, in the literal sense, in most use cases, GPL is unacceptable for me and consequentely I keep a wide distance to GPL coded libraries.
    - 7y ago
HorkHunter 7y ago
I honestly cannot fathom the idea of using my time maintaining or developing something that would be used commercially while the user has absolutely no copyleft obligations! well, guess you have to develop your libs then!
Nokinside 7y ago
BSD and LGPL/GPL type licenses are good for different purposes and intentions and different type of code. BSD is good when you consider you code as a snapshot that should be maximally available. GPL is good when you think the code as a long term valuable investment and process that must be protected. GPL is also really good choise for small to medium businesses with dual licensing. If you want so sell develop a software product and not just a service. If you own full copyright, you can always change the licensee later, so going with GPL first usually the safest choice.
inopinatus 7y ago
We must have differing definitions of freedom, because I regard the GPL as a severe curtailing of options and equate it with being forced to adopt a narrow, ideological worldview. If anything, this leads to fewer freedoms on use by directly creating more obligations for the user, and if my code is to be of utility for anyone, freedom of use is paramount. What’s more, and most ironically, copyleft perpetuates the fundamental atrocity of intellectual property law, by hacking it, and therefore intrinsically depending on it; in contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses are mostly a liability waiver under an assertion of attribution, ultimately creations more of necessity than ideology. I struggle to accept the separate and somewhat animistic notion of code itself being free, having never successfully anthropomorphised a program.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  We probably do have different definitions of freedom. My definition is along the lines of yours ends where mine starts, whereas yours sounds more like 'absolute freedom'. You're right to an extent, the GPL does place certain obligations on the users, in particular to maintain (at least) the level of freedom they themselves were given, which naturally limits what one can do to an extent. P.S. Yes, it all depends on copyright law, BSD does too, otherwise public domain would suffice.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    Funny that GPL does violate your definition of freedom. Because it doesn't end where my freedom starts. It tries to impose a new license of my software linked to the GPL software. And it imposes obligations to the user beyond what the user was given.
    - AsyncAwait 7y ago
      You do not have the freedom to just take "my" code and do whatever. The moment you include my GPL'd code, you're stepping onto my ground and thus need to abide by some rules I set out for those that do. You're still free to not use my code, but not to do as you wish if you do, because at that moment you're stepping onto my own freedom.
diamondlovesyou 7y ago
I will likely be downvoted for saying this, but fuck it. This "copyleft is free (as in freedom)" claim bothers me. Copyleft is not free (as in freedom). Its more like free (but this gun pointed at your temple will shoot if you do not agree with The One True Philosophy). That doesn't sound like freedom to me; more like thinly veiled tyranny. (I suppose this is mostly the fault of the redefinition of a derivative work, but that's a separate issue). My definition of freedom means that every individual has the right to their own One True Philosophy, whatever that may be. Wanna write your software in the nude (as in publicly)? Be my guest. Wanna write code for Dept. of Defense missiles (which probably should never, ever be public)? Go nuts, IDGAF. Etc, etc. The GPL is a mistake for software development. I don't mean that just because of what I said above. It's a mistake because of its infectious nature. Whether or not you or I agree (or any reason, it doesn't matter), you must comply. Like a Borg drone, with no freedom. With a non-copyleft licence, any library will still be useful no matter the licence of the software it's linked to (well, except the aforementioned GPL-ed code). See libstdc++ for an example: if it really were vanilla GPL, nobody would use the STL (or at least, not GCC's STL)! (Written on my Kubuntu workstation).
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  As I said elsewhere, I do understand where you're coming from. My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts, there's also a sort of 'absolute freedom', in the right-leaning libertarian kind of sense i.e. as long as one has the manpower to do it, they can do it. This just sounds like actual tyranny, if you ask me. The BSD is probably a lot closer to that 'absolute freedom', (not entirely, still requires you to preserve certain copyright texts for example public domain is probably closest). The GPL simply limits your ability to pass on less guarantees with the software you're distributing than you yourself have received.
  - asdkjh345fd 7y ago
    >My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts That's everyone else's definition too. The disagreement comes from you having the underlying assumption that producing non-GPL software is causing harm, while other people do not share that assumption. Everyone agrees that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, because everyone agrees that punching me is causing harm. But a lot of people do not consider writing software to be causing harm, so they do not see a valid reason to prohibit people from writing software.
henvic 7y ago
Copyleft is NOT free as in freedom. Period.

tomxor 7y ago

> I want to guarantee to my users that my software will always remain free [...] I always found this argument for GPL a little uncomfortable because of what it implies... let's be more precise: the existing code you publish whether using GPL or BSD will always remain free (it is irrevocably free); copyleft makes a distinction for freedom of derivatives i.e GPL forces people to make all future code free as well, this is about enforcing future investment not remaining free. To be clear I'm not dogmatic about either, I think both copyleft and permissive licenses have their place - it's simply subjective - some software feels more suited to GPL and others more suited to BSD.

dazzawazza 7y ago

"Licensing should absolutely be considered", I agree but for all the opposite reasons. I release all my code under MIT/BSD as I do not want anyone, at all, for any reason, to not be able to use my code, for good or for bad as defined by me. I also prefer the BSD community as it lacks the hubris of "a greater mission" that the GPL fosters leading to this notion of good and bad. Plurality of thought, use and outcomes are a good thing.

AsyncAwait 7y ago
Just wanted to point out that the GPL isn't really about 'good'/'bad' morality choices, in fact one of the pillars of copyleft is that it does not make such subjective choices. If that wasn't the case, companies like IBM wouldn't be able to use GPL'd software, as they famously weren't able with Crockford's "don't do evil" license. The GPL is really about guarantees. You rely on guarantees every day to be able to go about your day. People like me just wish to extend certain guarantees, (not warranty), to the software we write.

_ph_ 7y ago

Even with lets say BSD-licensed code, the code you publish and maintain stays free. There is only the possiblitly that some entity maintains their private fork of your code and distributes that. But that doesn't change the state of the freedom of the code you publish. Also, it is extremely unlikely, that a company does significant changes to a well-maintained code and doesn't push them back upstream, as this reduces their maintenance effort. Yet, if you want to completely rule out the possiblity of that "propriatary fork", one could amend the license so that the distributor has to include the sources. This is a legitimate request. If one says: "but that is what the GPL does", that is not correct. The blog posted by the parent poster clearly lists a lot of problems with the variations of the GPL license. The LGPL license too much assumes you are using C, and the GPL of course requires you to relicense your own code just to be able to use a GPL-ed library.

AsyncAwait 7y ago
GPL does exactly that, prevents the distribution of proprietary forks. And yes, the GPL does require you to release all your code if you want to use a GPL'd library. It's not "just" a library. The library is presumably needed for your program to function. If yes, there's noting wrong with the author of that library requiring you pass on the same guarantees with your software that you were given by them when you decided to use their library, which they spent their precious time building.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  If you had read my post carefully, I was explicitly stating that the GPL does that. But it doesn't exactly that. As I wrote, it imposes a lot of unrelated restrictions to the code usage. And yes, for myself I consider it an unacceptable demand, that I change the license of code unrelated to the library I am using, just because that library wants to impose that. My code might even be more free than the GPL code I would be using, but that doesn't matter to the GPL. And for that, in the literal sense, in most use cases, GPL is unacceptable for me and consequentely I keep a wide distance to GPL coded libraries.
  - 7y ago

HorkHunter 7y ago

I honestly cannot fathom the idea of using my time maintaining or developing something that would be used commercially while the user has absolutely no copyleft obligations! well, guess you have to develop your libs then!

Nokinside 7y ago

BSD and LGPL/GPL type licenses are good for different purposes and intentions and different type of code. BSD is good when you consider you code as a snapshot that should be maximally available. GPL is good when you think the code as a long term valuable investment and process that must be protected. GPL is also really good choise for small to medium businesses with dual licensing. If you want so sell develop a software product and not just a service. If you own full copyright, you can always change the licensee later, so going with GPL first usually the safest choice.

inopinatus 7y ago

We must have differing definitions of freedom, because I regard the GPL as a severe curtailing of options and equate it with being forced to adopt a narrow, ideological worldview. If anything, this leads to fewer freedoms on use by directly creating more obligations for the user, and if my code is to be of utility for anyone, freedom of use is paramount. What’s more, and most ironically, copyleft perpetuates the fundamental atrocity of intellectual property law, by hacking it, and therefore intrinsically depending on it; in contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses are mostly a liability waiver under an assertion of attribution, ultimately creations more of necessity than ideology. I struggle to accept the separate and somewhat animistic notion of code itself being free, having never successfully anthropomorphised a program.

AsyncAwait 7y ago
We probably do have different definitions of freedom. My definition is along the lines of yours ends where mine starts, whereas yours sounds more like 'absolute freedom'. You're right to an extent, the GPL does place certain obligations on the users, in particular to maintain (at least) the level of freedom they themselves were given, which naturally limits what one can do to an extent. P.S. Yes, it all depends on copyright law, BSD does too, otherwise public domain would suffice.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  Funny that GPL does violate your definition of freedom. Because it doesn't end where my freedom starts. It tries to impose a new license of my software linked to the GPL software. And it imposes obligations to the user beyond what the user was given.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    You do not have the freedom to just take "my" code and do whatever. The moment you include my GPL'd code, you're stepping onto my ground and thus need to abide by some rules I set out for those that do. You're still free to not use my code, but not to do as you wish if you do, because at that moment you're stepping onto my own freedom.

diamondlovesyou 7y ago

I will likely be downvoted for saying this, but fuck it. This "copyleft is free (as in freedom)" claim bothers me. Copyleft is not free (as in freedom). Its more like free (but this gun pointed at your temple will shoot if you do not agree with The One True Philosophy). That doesn't sound like freedom to me; more like thinly veiled tyranny. (I suppose this is mostly the fault of the redefinition of a derivative work, but that's a separate issue). My definition of freedom means that every individual has the right to their own One True Philosophy, whatever that may be. Wanna write your software in the nude (as in publicly)? Be my guest. Wanna write code for Dept. of Defense missiles (which probably should never, ever be public)? Go nuts, IDGAF. Etc, etc. The GPL is a mistake for software development. I don't mean that just because of what I said above. It's a mistake because of its infectious nature. Whether or not you or I agree (or any reason, it doesn't matter), you must comply. Like a Borg drone, with no freedom. With a non-copyleft licence, any library will still be useful no matter the licence of the software it's linked to (well, except the aforementioned GPL-ed code). See libstdc++ for an example: if it really were vanilla GPL, nobody would use the STL (or at least, not GCC's STL)! (Written on my Kubuntu workstation).

AsyncAwait 7y ago
As I said elsewhere, I do understand where you're coming from. My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts, there's also a sort of 'absolute freedom', in the right-leaning libertarian kind of sense i.e. as long as one has the manpower to do it, they can do it. This just sounds like actual tyranny, if you ask me. The BSD is probably a lot closer to that 'absolute freedom', (not entirely, still requires you to preserve certain copyright texts for example public domain is probably closest). The GPL simply limits your ability to pass on less guarantees with the software you're distributing than you yourself have received.
- asdkjh345fd 7y ago
  >My definition of freedom is akin to your freedom ends where mine starts That's everyone else's definition too. The disagreement comes from you having the underlying assumption that producing non-GPL software is causing harm, while other people do not share that assumption. Everyone agrees that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, because everyone agrees that punching me is causing harm. But a lot of people do not consider writing software to be causing harm, so they do not see a valid reason to prohibit people from writing software.

henvic 7y ago

Copyleft is NOT free as in freedom. Period.