8 ms·

This is why you always use GPL

pjmlp 6y ago
Indeed, no tears dropped here.
Dork1234 6y ago
Re branding a MIT license software and selling a commercial version is a good thing if done correctly. Clearly Zen is not providing any added value. The key takeaway from this is you don't sign contracts with overly aggressive business executives. I also think Non-competes should be almost completely banned for most employees.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  The key takeaway for me is that a third party is able to use thousands of manhours of someone else’s labor as a basis for their closed source product without having to share their enhancements or pay a dime. If zig were licensed GPL, the zig foundation would be able to sell permissive licenses to companies that don’t want to share source as a way to fundraise.
  - kristoff_it 6y ago
    As the author of the statement, I disagree. Parent poster got it right: the license is MIT precisely to allow the highest degree of freedom. Companies that want to profit from Zig are welcome to do so, but in this particular case, we consider connectFree a bad actor and so we crossed the language barrier to make sure Japanese developers would be able to hear from both sides.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      From the statement: “We can’t in good conscience recommend to Japanese professionals and businesses to make their livelihood depend on a closed-source, superficial rebranding of Zig“ Does the zig foundation have a problem with recommending closed-source superficial rebrandings of Zig or just from connectFree?
      - dnautics 6y ago
        did you read the description of what happened?
        CyberRabbi 6y ago
        Yes
        dnautics 6y ago
        then I submit that your rhetorical question at the end of your statement is flawed. Maybe consider the question: Does zig have a problem with closed-source rebrandings by companies that cause serious damage to the ecosystem outside of merely forking the code?
        CyberRabbi 6y ago
        It was not flawed nor rhetorical, if their concern is with ecosystem damage, then the fact that the company makes a closed source superficial rebrand should have no bearing on that. Unless they indeed have a problem with companies profiting from Zig.
      - judofyr 6y ago
        Regardless of the legality of a thing, the foundation might of course recommend against using it. Imagine that someone wrote a shitty book (without stealing any content) which ends up as the only result on Amazon. It’s perfectly legal to release such a book and it would be sensible for the foundation to warn the Zig community about the lacking quality. Just because the license allows anyone to fork it and sell it doesn’t mean that Zig is obliged to endorse it.
        CyberRabbi 6y ago
        It’s fine for the foundation to recommend against certain companies, but it’s inconsistent to recommend against any specific company on the basis of it being “closed source superficial rebrand” if they claim to have no issue with people using their code on those terms.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    > a third party is able to use thousands of manhours of someone else’s labor as a basis for their closed source product without having to share their enhancements or pay a dime. This is my favorite part about open source. Why are you painting it as a bad thing?
    - pfraze 6y ago
      There's a difference between using open-source in your work and doing a superficial fork & rebrand. The latter is clearly trying to steal the upside from the creator of the code.
      - ModernMech 6y ago
        Of course there is a difference, but again that's what I love about open source. You put something out there, and then it has a life of its own. So what if some people come along and try to sell your code with a new name? Good luck to them, I hope they become very rich off my code (are there any examples of this actually happening?). Personally I write open source code because I like writing open source code, not to get rich.
  - magic_quotes 6y ago
    > If zig were licensed GPL, the zig foundation would be able to sell permissive licenses to companies That would be against the spirit of GPL, which is ideologically opposed to all proprietary software.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Stallman himself has said he approves of GPL/Commercial dual licensing. It's a good way to support a project - companies don't like the GPL but they also want to spend money on support.
      - magic_quotes 6y ago
        FSF isn't vehemently opposed to permissive licenses either (they are merely discouraged), but that is the argument GP decided to bring here.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > It's a good way to support a project I disagree. GPL/Commercial dual licensing is always a game of perverse incentives. Even if you aren't actively crippling the free part of your product you're incentivised to make it difficult enough to work with or otherwise support that companies will be inclined to pay you to do it.
        mhh__ 6y ago
        Not necessarily - the GPL is a no-go for some companies regardless of the difference in quality between the free and not free. Remember that it's not free it's about lawyer approval.
      - 1980phipsi 6y ago
        Can you dual license with both GPL and MIT (or other)? Would that make sense?
        mhh__ 6y ago
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > Re branding a MIT license software and selling a commercial version is a good thing if done correctly. GPL does not prevent you from selling a commercial version, only from closing up the source. Having no access to the source is to direct user determent.
mStreamTeam 6y ago
Most programmers would benefit by stepping out of their bubble and learning more about the business and legal side of their work
tl 6y ago
Taking the story at face value: Zen lied to customers and the community, hired a developer away from Zig, and that developer cannot work on Zig now due to an NDA. GPL violations are not unknown. Would Zen have really cared about breaking the license? Would legal mechanisms work fast enough to limit damage?
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  All of that developers work on zen would be available to the zig foundation if it were licensed GPL. If it were licensed GPL and they were violating that license they could sue in the legal system instead of writing a blog post with dubious effect.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    and where would the money and time to pursue a lawsuit come from?
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      From the Zig foundation
      - dnautics 6y ago
        that's laughable. How much do you suppose it would cost to hire an international lawyer to pursue a case in a foreign country. Even if there were enough resources, do you think that the stakeholders in the Zig Foundation would consider that to be a reasonable use of the funds that they've donated? I certainly wouldn't. As a donor, as far as I can tell, this is as good as they could do. I'm much happier that they spend their money on code, and leave it at a statement that can grab attention, like what they have done.
        CyberRabbi 6y ago
        Roughly $100K-$200K maximum and it would be a good use of time if it would recover potentially millions for the foundation.
fengb 6y ago
How would GPL help? It doesn't stop hostile forks. Pretty sure the ask isn't the Zen source.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  Hostile forks would not be able to keep their enhancements private, thus ensuring a reciprocal relationship.
  - bencollier49 6y ago
    And there's nothing to stop the current Zig team from making future releases GPL, is there? Problem solved...?
    - wolco 6y ago
      Sort of but only the new parts would fall under gpl the rest bsd.
      - a-nikolaev 6y ago
        If I'm not mistaken, if all code authors agree on the license change, then, the new release can be made fully GPL. While the old copy will be still available as MIT. A malicious actor can pretend that they merged MIT parts with new GPL parts, but I think, it would not take a lot of time, until such merging would become technically hard, and the code can be effectively converted into GPL. However, since Zen's guy was a contributor, it's probably not possible to get all authors' permission to change the license for the entire Zig codebase.
  - kristoff_it 6y ago
    While I can't speak with absolute certainty, we probably would not want to merge any "improvement" Zen made.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
kodablah 6y ago
For those that believe in software freedoms as fewer restrictions, you have to accept that people may take advantage of your fewer restrictions. This is the cost of giving more (beer) freedom, and you don't have to abandon your principles because of how it manifests. (this has obvious political analogies in other restriction-less freedom contexts too)
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  The existence of this blog post suggests to me that they either don’t believe in total software freedom or they haven’t yet accepted that people will take advantage of it.
  - kodablah 6y ago
    I read it a bit different, I read it as they're proud of their freedom stance, and they are just informing users about a hostile fork without even hinting at reducing their principals henceforth.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      Then why do they imply in the blog post that “closed source superficial rebrandings” should be avoided by potential customers?
      - wrsh07 6y ago
        Because zig is free? A marked up superficial re banding is a scam
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    They are warning contributors to not inadvertently sign a contract that would prevent them from contributing to Zig. Me telling you there is a cliff here, be careful does nothing to infringe on your rights to walk off that cliff.
    - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
YorickPeterse 6y ago
A language licensed as the GPL likely would not see any users, as programs built on it would link to it (or at least parts of it, such as the standard library); thus requiring either an exception clause, or that all software using the language also be licensed as GPL. IIRC the AGPL is better for this, but most GPL licenses are just blacklisted by companies; reducing the likelihood of the language catching on.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Like GCC and Linux, total failure trying to cater for users, while FreeBSD rules.

Indeed, no tears dropped here.

Re branding a MIT license software and selling a commercial version is a good thing if done correctly. Clearly Zen is not providing any added value. The key takeaway from this is you don't sign contracts with overly aggressive business executives. I also think Non-competes should be almost completely banned for most employees.

CyberRabbi 6y ago
The key takeaway for me is that a third party is able to use thousands of manhours of someone else’s labor as a basis for their closed source product without having to share their enhancements or pay a dime. If zig were licensed GPL, the zig foundation would be able to sell permissive licenses to companies that don’t want to share source as a way to fundraise.
- kristoff_it 6y ago
  As the author of the statement, I disagree. Parent poster got it right: the license is MIT precisely to allow the highest degree of freedom. Companies that want to profit from Zig are welcome to do so, but in this particular case, we consider connectFree a bad actor and so we crossed the language barrier to make sure Japanese developers would be able to hear from both sides.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    From the statement: “We can’t in good conscience recommend to Japanese professionals and businesses to make their livelihood depend on a closed-source, superficial rebranding of Zig“ Does the zig foundation have a problem with recommending closed-source superficial rebrandings of Zig or just from connectFree?
    - dnautics 6y ago
      did you read the description of what happened?
      - CyberRabbi 6y ago
        Yes
        dnautics 6y ago
        then I submit that your rhetorical question at the end of your statement is flawed. Maybe consider the question: Does zig have a problem with closed-source rebrandings by companies that cause serious damage to the ecosystem outside of merely forking the code?
        CyberRabbi 6y ago
        It was not flawed nor rhetorical, if their concern is with ecosystem damage, then the fact that the company makes a closed source superficial rebrand should have no bearing on that. Unless they indeed have a problem with companies profiting from Zig.
    - judofyr 6y ago
      Regardless of the legality of a thing, the foundation might of course recommend against using it. Imagine that someone wrote a shitty book (without stealing any content) which ends up as the only result on Amazon. It’s perfectly legal to release such a book and it would be sensible for the foundation to warn the Zig community about the lacking quality. Just because the license allows anyone to fork it and sell it doesn’t mean that Zig is obliged to endorse it.
      - CyberRabbi 6y ago
        It’s fine for the foundation to recommend against certain companies, but it’s inconsistent to recommend against any specific company on the basis of it being “closed source superficial rebrand” if they claim to have no issue with people using their code on those terms.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  > a third party is able to use thousands of manhours of someone else’s labor as a basis for their closed source product without having to share their enhancements or pay a dime. This is my favorite part about open source. Why are you painting it as a bad thing?
  - pfraze 6y ago
    There's a difference between using open-source in your work and doing a superficial fork & rebrand. The latter is clearly trying to steal the upside from the creator of the code.
    - ModernMech 6y ago
      Of course there is a difference, but again that's what I love about open source. You put something out there, and then it has a life of its own. So what if some people come along and try to sell your code with a new name? Good luck to them, I hope they become very rich off my code (are there any examples of this actually happening?). Personally I write open source code because I like writing open source code, not to get rich.
- magic_quotes 6y ago
  > If zig were licensed GPL, the zig foundation would be able to sell permissive licenses to companies That would be against the spirit of GPL, which is ideologically opposed to all proprietary software.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Stallman himself has said he approves of GPL/Commercial dual licensing. It's a good way to support a project - companies don't like the GPL but they also want to spend money on support.
    - magic_quotes 6y ago
      FSF isn't vehemently opposed to permissive licenses either (they are merely discouraged), but that is the argument GP decided to bring here.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > It's a good way to support a project I disagree. GPL/Commercial dual licensing is always a game of perverse incentives. Even if you aren't actively crippling the free part of your product you're incentivised to make it difficult enough to work with or otherwise support that companies will be inclined to pay you to do it.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        Not necessarily - the GPL is a no-go for some companies regardless of the difference in quality between the free and not free. Remember that it's not free it's about lawyer approval.
    - 1980phipsi 6y ago
      Can you dual license with both GPL and MIT (or other)? Would that make sense?
      - mhh__ 6y ago
AsyncAwait 6y ago
> Re branding a MIT license software and selling a commercial version is a good thing if done correctly. GPL does not prevent you from selling a commercial version, only from closing up the source. Having no access to the source is to direct user determent.

mStreamTeam 6y ago

Most programmers would benefit by stepping out of their bubble and learning more about the business and legal side of their work

tl 6y ago

Taking the story at face value: Zen lied to customers and the community, hired a developer away from Zig, and that developer cannot work on Zig now due to an NDA. GPL violations are not unknown. Would Zen have really cared about breaking the license? Would legal mechanisms work fast enough to limit damage?

CyberRabbi 6y ago
All of that developers work on zen would be available to the zig foundation if it were licensed GPL. If it were licensed GPL and they were violating that license they could sue in the legal system instead of writing a blog post with dubious effect.
- dnautics 6y ago
  and where would the money and time to pursue a lawsuit come from?
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    From the Zig foundation
    - dnautics 6y ago
      that's laughable. How much do you suppose it would cost to hire an international lawyer to pursue a case in a foreign country. Even if there were enough resources, do you think that the stakeholders in the Zig Foundation would consider that to be a reasonable use of the funds that they've donated? I certainly wouldn't. As a donor, as far as I can tell, this is as good as they could do. I'm much happier that they spend their money on code, and leave it at a statement that can grab attention, like what they have done.
      - CyberRabbi 6y ago
        Roughly $100K-$200K maximum and it would be a good use of time if it would recover potentially millions for the foundation.

fengb 6y ago

How would GPL help? It doesn't stop hostile forks. Pretty sure the ask isn't the Zen source.

CyberRabbi 6y ago
Hostile forks would not be able to keep their enhancements private, thus ensuring a reciprocal relationship.
- bencollier49 6y ago
  And there's nothing to stop the current Zig team from making future releases GPL, is there? Problem solved...?
  - wolco 6y ago
    Sort of but only the new parts would fall under gpl the rest bsd.
    - a-nikolaev 6y ago
      If I'm not mistaken, if all code authors agree on the license change, then, the new release can be made fully GPL. While the old copy will be still available as MIT. A malicious actor can pretend that they merged MIT parts with new GPL parts, but I think, it would not take a lot of time, until such merging would become technically hard, and the code can be effectively converted into GPL. However, since Zen's guy was a contributor, it's probably not possible to get all authors' permission to change the license for the entire Zig codebase.
- kristoff_it 6y ago
  While I can't speak with absolute certainty, we probably would not want to merge any "improvement" Zen made.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago

kodablah 6y ago

For those that believe in software freedoms as fewer restrictions, you have to accept that people may take advantage of your fewer restrictions. This is the cost of giving more (beer) freedom, and you don't have to abandon your principles because of how it manifests. (this has obvious political analogies in other restriction-less freedom contexts too)

CyberRabbi 6y ago
The existence of this blog post suggests to me that they either don’t believe in total software freedom or they haven’t yet accepted that people will take advantage of it.
- kodablah 6y ago
  I read it a bit different, I read it as they're proud of their freedom stance, and they are just informing users about a hostile fork without even hinting at reducing their principals henceforth.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    Then why do they imply in the blog post that “closed source superficial rebrandings” should be avoided by potential customers?
    - wrsh07 6y ago
      Because zig is free? A marked up superficial re banding is a scam
- aidenn0 6y ago
  They are warning contributors to not inadvertently sign a contract that would prevent them from contributing to Zig. Me telling you there is a cliff here, be careful does nothing to infringe on your rights to walk off that cliff.
  - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

YorickPeterse 6y ago

A language licensed as the GPL likely would not see any users, as programs built on it would link to it (or at least parts of it, such as the standard library); thus requiring either an exception clause, or that all software using the language also be licensed as GPL. IIRC the AGPL is better for this, but most GPL licenses are just blacklisted by companies; reducing the likelihood of the language catching on.

pjmlp 6y ago
Like GCC and Linux, total failure trying to cater for users, while FreeBSD rules.