4 ms·

Not only did it work well for the linux kernel, but it also worked well for the gcc, blender, gimp, inkscape, vlc, and so many more. The GPL works.

by hda2 6y ago

matheusmoreira 6y ago
Do you have concrete examples of how the GPL directly benefited the projects you mentioned? > gcc GCC is a very high quality free software compiler but there were occasions where it let free software ideology get in the way of technical excellence. Fearing proprietary extensions, they actively opposed a plugin system and stable intermediate representation. This led to the creation of LLVM.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > concrete examples of how the GPL directly benefited the projects you mentioned? The GPL is the reason for many source-code contributions. Compare this to the way Sony use FreeBSD to power their PS3 and PS4 consoles and contribute little back to the FreeBSD project. There are other reasons companies may contribute changes, including that it spares them the trouble of rebasing their fork, and it may earn them goodwill, but copyleft is a strong reason too. A good concrete example really is that of compilers. Apple used to begrudgingly contribute code to GCC, as the GPL required them to. LLVM has no such requirement, so we see proprietary forks crop up. [0] If I were to contribute to a project like GCC or LLVM, I'd rather my work didn't end up in some non-Free fork. That Apple later invested in LLVM turned out to be pretty great for everyone. GCC is still doing fine, and we have another industry-strength Free Software compiler suite. I'd rather Apple didn't use a proprietary fork for their own secret-sauce, but I can't be too grumpy given how well LLVM/Clang has done. > there were occasions where it let free software ideology get in the way of technical excellence It's an FSF project, so this criticism doesn't really land. FSF projects are not aiming for technical excellence at any cost. It's a bit like saying Free-range ideology gets in the way of my food budgeting. I don't know much about the specifics of GCC here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Optimizing_C/C%2B%2B_Compiler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Optimizing_C/C%2B%2B_Compi...
  - pas 6y ago
    Can we really know what Sony would have done in an alternate timeline? Maybe they would purchased a license to a non-FOSS OS. Maybe they would have simply used Linux with proprietary binary blobs.

Not only did it work well for the linux kernel, but it also worked well for the gcc, blender, gimp, inkscape, vlc, and so many more. The GPL works.

by hda2 6y ago

Not only did it work well for the linux kernel, but it also worked well for the gcc, blender, gimp, inkscape, vlc, and so many more. The GPL works.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

Do you have concrete examples of how the GPL directly benefited the projects you mentioned? > gcc GCC is a very high quality free software compiler but there were occasions where it let free software ideology get in the way of technical excellence. Fearing proprietary extensions, they actively opposed a plugin system and stable intermediate representation. This led to the creation of LLVM.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> concrete examples of how the GPL directly benefited the projects you mentioned? The GPL is the reason for many source-code contributions. Compare this to the way Sony use FreeBSD to power their PS3 and PS4 consoles and contribute little back to the FreeBSD project. There are other reasons companies may contribute changes, including that it spares them the trouble of rebasing their fork, and it may earn them goodwill, but copyleft is a strong reason too. A good concrete example really is that of compilers. Apple used to begrudgingly contribute code to GCC, as the GPL required them to. LLVM has no such requirement, so we see proprietary forks crop up. [0] If I were to contribute to a project like GCC or LLVM, I'd rather my work didn't end up in some non-Free fork. That Apple later invested in LLVM turned out to be pretty great for everyone. GCC is still doing fine, and we have another industry-strength Free Software compiler suite. I'd rather Apple didn't use a proprietary fork for their own secret-sauce, but I can't be too grumpy given how well LLVM/Clang has done. > there were occasions where it let free software ideology get in the way of technical excellence It's an FSF project, so this criticism doesn't really land. FSF projects are not aiming for technical excellence at any cost. It's a bit like saying Free-range ideology gets in the way of my food budgeting. I don't know much about the specifics of GCC here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Optimizing_C/C%2B%2B_Compiler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Optimizing_C/C%2B%2B_Compi...
- pas 6y ago
  Can we really know what Sony would have done in an alternate timeline? Maybe they would purchased a license to a non-FOSS OS. Maybe they would have simply used Linux with proprietary binary blobs.