7 ms·

Upstreaming non-GPL code is much easier for these companies to upstream GPL code, because a GPL upstream can "accidentally" leak all the IP of that company by r

Upstreaming non-GPL code is much easier for these companies to upstream GPL code, because a GPL upstream can "accidentally" leak all the IP of that company by requiring that company to publish all of its software. So the current options are: these companies don't open-source anything (which is what you get with GPL), or they open-source something (which is what you get with BSD, and in practice they open source a lot). The claim that with the GPL they would open source _everything_ isn't true; they would just not open source anything instead. I also don't see any current legal framework that would allow them to opens ource everything without loosing a significant competitive advantage, and am very skeptical that such a framework can be conceived.

pjmlp 6y ago
On the contrary, the claim is that without the GPL, commercial UNIXes would still be around. Since I am a commercial software user for most part, this is more of a philosophical question than anything else. Lets see how long Linux will hold out against the new generation of IoT OSes all being MIT/BSD based, and what the bazaar will get out of them. Or how long GCC will hold, when all major OSes use clang as their default compiler, and then how the baazar will go from there on.
- fluffything 6y ago
  > On the contrary, the claim is that without the GPL, commercial UNIXes would still be around. I'm not sure this is true. See LLVM as an example. GCC existing and being GPL only meant that, e.g., Apple couldn't properly use it. Apple could have bought LLVM and kept it private, or develop their own proprietary solution and not make it open source, or fork the open source project into a private project and never contribute anything back, etc. There were many options. Open source software has always existed, if anything, the GPL demonstrated that a particular open source model does not work well for a big part of the industry, while it works well for other parts, and non industrial usage. Linux being successful seems incidental to it being GPL'ed, at least to me. Other open source OSes, like BSD 4.x, have also been quite successfull (powering the whole MacOS and iOS ecosystems, after a significant frankenstransform into Mach). Maybe Linux would have been even more succesfull with a BSD license, or maybe it would be dead.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Exactly because I see LLVM as an example, given that not everyone using it contributes 100% back upstream. I wouldn't consider BSD layer from NeXTSTEP an example of success for BSD's market adoption, given that not everything goes upstream, by now it hardly represents the current state of affairs. If anything it represents what would have happened without Linux, all major UNIX vendors would continue to take pieces of BSD and not necessarily contribute anything back.
    - fluffything 6y ago
      > I wouldn't consider BSD layer from NeXTSTEP an example of success for BSD's market adoption, given that not everything goes upstream, by now it hardly represents the current state of affairs. Its essentially what happens if (1) only one company wants to use the open source product, and (2) the open source product has a tiny community where no development happens. In that scenario, there is no benefit from anybody forking the open source project (a private company or an individual) for upstreaming anything. It just costs time, but adds no value for them. Linux and GCC never was like this (not even early days), and I think this is independent of its license. LLVM never was like this either. In fact, there are many private companies that maintain a GCC fork, like arm, and due to the GPL need to provide its sources with a copy, which they do. But they are not required to reintegrate anything upstream, which they very often don't, and ARM support in gcc-arm from ARM is much better than on GCC upstream. A volunteer can't merge (review, rebase, ...) a 200k LOC patch on their free time, so once these forks diverge, its essentially game over. You'll need a team of volunteers equal in man power to what the private company provides. So while the license affects which companies can use an open source project in practice, and what they can or cannot contribute. The GPL2 and GPL3 licenses are not a good tool to actually allow everybody to benefit from those contributions. Maybe a GPL4 could require companies to upstream and get their contributions accepted, but IMO that would just get even less companies to use those projects.
- nix23 6y ago
  >On the contrary, the claim is that without the GPL, commercial UNIXes would still be around. BSD is Older than Linux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Berkeley_Software_Distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Berkeley_Softwa...
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    It is, as anyone coding since mid-80's would be aware of, what is its market share by now? Ah and there was that small legal issue back in the early 90's.
    - nix23 6y ago
      1/3 of the us internet traffic, not counting Juniper, then add all PS2/3/4 Consoles, MacOS's, FreeNas, EMC-San's: Biggest German Online Seller, Sony Japan, Checkpoint and so on...search for yourself. BTW: Market-share means nothing, you know Android is NOT Gnu/Linux EDIT: Maybe your too young..but do you remember that SCO/Microsoft thingy with Linux
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        I known, most of them don't contribute that much upstream. I surely remember it, except BSD did not ever had anyone like IBM jumping into the battle. :) As for being young, thanks for the compliment > ...as anyone coding since mid-80's.... And as information, during the early days, the Internet ran on commercial UNIXes.
        nix23 6y ago
        >IBM jumping into the battle They did not...the opposite is true, they shat their pants because shortly before they said "yes" to Linux, that's why SCO came...first time you had really big money (IBM) behind Linux, please don't change the timeline...it's kind of important. >And as information, during the early days, the Internet ran on commercial UNIXes. What do you wanna say with that? During the early days of Smartphones they ran on commercial OS's??
- onetimertwo 6y ago
  > the new generation of IoT OSes all being MIT/BSD based RIOT OS is LGPLv2.1.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Fair enough, what makes it a contender versus the Amazon, Microsoft, ARM, Samsung, Google, Linux Foundation sponsored ones?

pjmlp 6y ago

On the contrary, the claim is that without the GPL, commercial UNIXes would still be around. Since I am a commercial software user for most part, this is more of a philosophical question than anything else. Lets see how long Linux will hold out against the new generation of IoT OSes all being MIT/BSD based, and what the bazaar will get out of them. Or how long GCC will hold, when all major OSes use clang as their default compiler, and then how the baazar will go from there on.

fluffything 6y ago
> On the contrary, the claim is that without the GPL, commercial UNIXes would still be around. I'm not sure this is true. See LLVM as an example. GCC existing and being GPL only meant that, e.g., Apple couldn't properly use it. Apple could have bought LLVM and kept it private, or develop their own proprietary solution and not make it open source, or fork the open source project into a private project and never contribute anything back, etc. There were many options. Open source software has always existed, if anything, the GPL demonstrated that a particular open source model does not work well for a big part of the industry, while it works well for other parts, and non industrial usage. Linux being successful seems incidental to it being GPL'ed, at least to me. Other open source OSes, like BSD 4.x, have also been quite successfull (powering the whole MacOS and iOS ecosystems, after a significant frankenstransform into Mach). Maybe Linux would have been even more succesfull with a BSD license, or maybe it would be dead.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Exactly because I see LLVM as an example, given that not everyone using it contributes 100% back upstream. I wouldn't consider BSD layer from NeXTSTEP an example of success for BSD's market adoption, given that not everything goes upstream, by now it hardly represents the current state of affairs. If anything it represents what would have happened without Linux, all major UNIX vendors would continue to take pieces of BSD and not necessarily contribute anything back.
  - fluffything 6y ago
    > I wouldn't consider BSD layer from NeXTSTEP an example of success for BSD's market adoption, given that not everything goes upstream, by now it hardly represents the current state of affairs. Its essentially what happens if (1) only one company wants to use the open source product, and (2) the open source product has a tiny community where no development happens. In that scenario, there is no benefit from anybody forking the open source project (a private company or an individual) for upstreaming anything. It just costs time, but adds no value for them. Linux and GCC never was like this (not even early days), and I think this is independent of its license. LLVM never was like this either. In fact, there are many private companies that maintain a GCC fork, like arm, and due to the GPL need to provide its sources with a copy, which they do. But they are not required to reintegrate anything upstream, which they very often don't, and ARM support in gcc-arm from ARM is much better than on GCC upstream. A volunteer can't merge (review, rebase, ...) a 200k LOC patch on their free time, so once these forks diverge, its essentially game over. You'll need a team of volunteers equal in man power to what the private company provides. So while the license affects which companies can use an open source project in practice, and what they can or cannot contribute. The GPL2 and GPL3 licenses are not a good tool to actually allow everybody to benefit from those contributions. Maybe a GPL4 could require companies to upstream and get their contributions accepted, but IMO that would just get even less companies to use those projects.
nix23 6y ago
>On the contrary, the claim is that without the GPL, commercial UNIXes would still be around. BSD is Older than Linux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Berkeley_Software_Distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Berkeley_Softwa...
- pjmlp 6y ago
  It is, as anyone coding since mid-80's would be aware of, what is its market share by now? Ah and there was that small legal issue back in the early 90's.
  - nix23 6y ago
    1/3 of the us internet traffic, not counting Juniper, then add all PS2/3/4 Consoles, MacOS's, FreeNas, EMC-San's: Biggest German Online Seller, Sony Japan, Checkpoint and so on...search for yourself. BTW: Market-share means nothing, you know Android is NOT Gnu/Linux EDIT: Maybe your too young..but do you remember that SCO/Microsoft thingy with Linux
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      I known, most of them don't contribute that much upstream. I surely remember it, except BSD did not ever had anyone like IBM jumping into the battle. :) As for being young, thanks for the compliment > ...as anyone coding since mid-80's.... And as information, during the early days, the Internet ran on commercial UNIXes.
      - nix23 6y ago
        >IBM jumping into the battle They did not...the opposite is true, they shat their pants because shortly before they said "yes" to Linux, that's why SCO came...first time you had really big money (IBM) behind Linux, please don't change the timeline...it's kind of important. >And as information, during the early days, the Internet ran on commercial UNIXes. What do you wanna say with that? During the early days of Smartphones they ran on commercial OS's??
onetimertwo 6y ago
> the new generation of IoT OSes all being MIT/BSD based RIOT OS is LGPLv2.1.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Fair enough, what makes it a contender versus the Amazon, Microsoft, ARM, Samsung, Google, Linux Foundation sponsored ones?