8 ms·

I think the standard framing of copyleft as all about the user's rights is flawed. What we call copyright is a deeply flawed legal framework that helps to entre

by cdogl 6y ago

I think the standard framing of copyleft as all about the user's rights is flawed. What we call copyright is a deeply flawed legal framework that helps to entrench rent-seeking and anti-competitive behaviour, but there's another side of the coin: the intent of the law is genuinely to guarantee access to the fruits of one's intellectual labour. Of course, copyleft licenses such as the GPL _can_ be used to protect the authors' rights to compensation for commercial use of their work - but the framing matters. I think that's the fundamental reason open source licenses such as BSD and MIT have caught on - they centre on the need of the developer to get productive work done, not on the far more abstract principle of the home PC user being able to recompile their own software stack from source.

rhamzeh 6y ago
I believe copyleft stands for and invisions a better world where all code is free/libre and available to everyone. And the GPL family of licenses is trying to get us there. MIT and the like, while being good open source licences, allow anyone to break the chain and not release their code to the public. So it is good in terms of being open source and free/libre now, but does do anything for the future, and does not do enough to bring about the vision of a fully free world. Personally, I'd prefer the GPL licenses unless there's an good reason not to.
- mimixco 6y ago
  The good reason is that GPL's requirement that I make my source code and build instructions available to my licensed customers (paid customers only, btw, if I want) doesn't actually help the original developer at all. Is he or she supposed to dig into my doc and diff my changes? The idea that there is some wonderful "community" on GitHub and all this code just flows back into a beautiful, better place simply isn't how programming works. No one would do that.
  - kubanczyk 6y ago
    Who cares about GitHub? Your paid user can take the code and go to the original dev (or any other) and become their paying customer, if they need more work done. Therefore GPL helps both users and devs.
theobeers 6y ago
IMO it makes more sense to look at the rising popularity of a license like MIT, as opposed to the GPL, in terms of the acceptability of each license to different groups of individuals and institutions. What is the range of opinion regarding the MIT license? From what I’ve seen, people are either fine with it, or mildly disgruntled. Exceptions are rare. And of course, corporations love having access to software libraries under this license. How about the GPL? Individual developers seem to be either ok with it, or enthusiastically in support. That’s cool—I’m sure we can all relate to those feelings. But a lot of, ahem, for-profit institutions simply will not get involved in GPL-licensed software. We’ve seen repeatedly the effects of their willingness to walk away, to invest in alternatives, etc. It seems obvious, if depressing, how things will move over time.
- zelphirkalt 6y ago
  But then again it is also obvious that greedy people will have more emotions involved when it comes to something that forces them to contribute back, so no surprise there. I think this is painting the picture in a too one-sided way. Here is another way to see it: While for-profits might develop their own alternatives, they will fail to make those GPL licensed in most cases, because that is what they wanted to avoid: Giving back to the society, that allows them to exist. So they will have proprietary code. The next company will do the same and so on, all while slowly the GPL licensed alternative creeps up on them, until finally it has caught up. It gets ever more expensive to not use GPL software, as free software slowly gains ground.
- indymike 6y ago
  Plenty of for-profits use, support and contribute to GPL'd software. I suspect that those who will not are a smaller set than companies who prefer not to.
throwaway50203 6y ago
> far more abstract principle of the home PC user being able to recompile their own software stack from source. I contributed hundreds of hours of work into libraries. They are used by the same companies that sell me locked-down devices that I cannot modify or even inspect. They even invade the my privacy and I cannot disable that. At least GPL tries to mitigate this problem. MIT turns volunteering into unpaid labor for some billionaires. Calling it "far more abstract principle" is quite absurd. These companies try hard to push the narrative that MIT is "practical" and GPL is "political" - guess why.
- carapace 6y ago
  This. I try to remind folks that the whole GPL thing got started when RMS wanted to fix his printer and Xerox said "no" despite having (IIRC) used some of his work to write the printer software he wanted to edit.
- qsort 6y ago
  > MIT turns volunteering into unpaid labor for some billionaires. Um... no? The idea behind MIT/ISC and the like is to let other people use your software, which they aren't automatically allowed to do because copyright is broken by default. There's a lot of software that I would like to use in my day job that I can't touch because it's GPL. This is by design. > These companies try hard to push the narrative that MIT is "practical" and GPL is "political" - guess why. I have no sympathy for FAANG, but that happens to be correct. GPL is explicitly political in its intent.
  - amw 6y ago
    MIT ends up just as political, it just does so by assuming society's default politics. It "just so happens" those default politics are great for billionaires.
    - crankyoldcrank 6y ago
      Ugh, they're also great for anyone that wants to feed themselves with their software, whether self employed or not. God forbid people use a license that makes it easier to turn a profit so they don't have to beg to stay afloat.
zelphirkalt 6y ago
> I think that's the fundamental reason open source licenses such as BSD and MIT have caught on - they centre on the need of the developer to get productive work done, not on the far more abstract principle of the home PC user being able to recompile their own software stack from source. That is reducing what GPL is about quite a lot. For example it is equally important, if not more, that modifications in most cases have to be contributed back to the community, which means getting companies to take part in the action, instead of simply using work of others, profitting from it and never contributing anything back.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  > For example it is equally important, if not more, that modifications in most cases have to be contributed back to the community, which means getting companies to take part in the action, instead of simply using work of others, profitting from it and never contributing anything back. This is wrong. There is no requirement to contribute back to the community, just the requirement that changes (or rather, the source with your changes) be made available to your users. This means they could mail CDs of their code to their paying customers only, if they so choose. A far cry from "contributing back to the community", closer to something like "a pain in the ass."
  - mimixco 6y ago
    Exactly. I don't know where the phrase "contribute to the community" came from but it's not in the GPL license text. All you have to do to comply is make your own source code available on request to users who accept your license, along with installation instructions to build the running product. That's not contributing anything to the other dev's community.
  - dec0dedab0de 6y ago
    And really that's a beautiful thing. If I'm going to rely on your software. I want a way to keep supporting myself if you go out of business or you deem my suggestions unworthy.
    - 6y ago
asimovfan 6y ago
You are comparing GPL to a product as if it should aim to reach some sort of market penetration. GPL is not necessarily for developers to get productive work done. It is for people to ensure maximum benevolence with their work for everyone and take the highest moral position. I believe what needs market penetration is this ideal, rather than the GPL itself. GPL is for people who already hold this kind of ideal. They are looking for exactly this. I don't say you shouldn't ever make money from your work or never use any copyright/MIT/BSD licenses. Most people are not filthy rich and need the money. What I am saying is GPL is not for this, and does not have the requirement to be convenient or framed in a different way than the heroic selfless endeavor it is, in any sense.
- codeguro2 6y ago
  > GPL is not necessarily for developers to get productive work done. Try getting some productive work done without the source. Like fixing a printer of a proprietary driver, for instance. No, the GPL is about exactly about getting practical work done. That's why it emphasizes so much on the 4 essential freedoms, and why 3 of those 4 freedoms are essentially the same thing "the freedom to tinker with the source code and share that information with other developers who can tinker with it some more and do the same".
bergstromm466 6y ago
> the intent of the law is genuinely to guarantee access to the fruits of one's intellectual labour This seems a naive take when considering that it's Corporations who hold the most Intellectual Property[1] (Patents and Copyrights) and are the 'customers' or beneficiaries of Intellectual Property laws and systems. It's Corporations who focus on IP acquisition (and thus monopolization) strategies (e.g. Google buying smaller startups to add their Intellectual Property to it's repertoire). ...in other words, the likelyhood of average Joe being helped by the Intellectual Property system to get access to the fruits of his labor is not a common situation at all. Most new innovations are the result of access and engagement with existing Corporate Intellectual Property (plus an expensive education). [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

by cdogl 6y ago

rhamzeh 6y ago

I believe copyleft stands for and invisions a better world where all code is free/libre and available to everyone. And the GPL family of licenses is trying to get us there. MIT and the like, while being good open source licences, allow anyone to break the chain and not release their code to the public. So it is good in terms of being open source and free/libre now, but does do anything for the future, and does not do enough to bring about the vision of a fully free world. Personally, I'd prefer the GPL licenses unless there's an good reason not to.

mimixco 6y ago
The good reason is that GPL's requirement that I make my source code and build instructions available to my licensed customers (paid customers only, btw, if I want) doesn't actually help the original developer at all. Is he or she supposed to dig into my doc and diff my changes? The idea that there is some wonderful "community" on GitHub and all this code just flows back into a beautiful, better place simply isn't how programming works. No one would do that.
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  Who cares about GitHub? Your paid user can take the code and go to the original dev (or any other) and become their paying customer, if they need more work done. Therefore GPL helps both users and devs.

theobeers 6y ago

IMO it makes more sense to look at the rising popularity of a license like MIT, as opposed to the GPL, in terms of the acceptability of each license to different groups of individuals and institutions. What is the range of opinion regarding the MIT license? From what I’ve seen, people are either fine with it, or mildly disgruntled. Exceptions are rare. And of course, corporations love having access to software libraries under this license. How about the GPL? Individual developers seem to be either ok with it, or enthusiastically in support. That’s cool—I’m sure we can all relate to those feelings. But a lot of, ahem, for-profit institutions simply will not get involved in GPL-licensed software. We’ve seen repeatedly the effects of their willingness to walk away, to invest in alternatives, etc. It seems obvious, if depressing, how things will move over time.

zelphirkalt 6y ago
But then again it is also obvious that greedy people will have more emotions involved when it comes to something that forces them to contribute back, so no surprise there. I think this is painting the picture in a too one-sided way. Here is another way to see it: While for-profits might develop their own alternatives, they will fail to make those GPL licensed in most cases, because that is what they wanted to avoid: Giving back to the society, that allows them to exist. So they will have proprietary code. The next company will do the same and so on, all while slowly the GPL licensed alternative creeps up on them, until finally it has caught up. It gets ever more expensive to not use GPL software, as free software slowly gains ground.
indymike 6y ago
Plenty of for-profits use, support and contribute to GPL'd software. I suspect that those who will not are a smaller set than companies who prefer not to.

throwaway50203 6y ago

> far more abstract principle of the home PC user being able to recompile their own software stack from source. I contributed hundreds of hours of work into libraries. They are used by the same companies that sell me locked-down devices that I cannot modify or even inspect. They even invade the my privacy and I cannot disable that. At least GPL tries to mitigate this problem. MIT turns volunteering into unpaid labor for some billionaires. Calling it "far more abstract principle" is quite absurd. These companies try hard to push the narrative that MIT is "practical" and GPL is "political" - guess why.

carapace 6y ago
This. I try to remind folks that the whole GPL thing got started when RMS wanted to fix his printer and Xerox said "no" despite having (IIRC) used some of his work to write the printer software he wanted to edit.
qsort 6y ago
> MIT turns volunteering into unpaid labor for some billionaires. Um... no? The idea behind MIT/ISC and the like is to let other people use your software, which they aren't automatically allowed to do because copyright is broken by default. There's a lot of software that I would like to use in my day job that I can't touch because it's GPL. This is by design. > These companies try hard to push the narrative that MIT is "practical" and GPL is "political" - guess why. I have no sympathy for FAANG, but that happens to be correct. GPL is explicitly political in its intent.
- amw 6y ago
  MIT ends up just as political, it just does so by assuming society's default politics. It "just so happens" those default politics are great for billionaires.
  - crankyoldcrank 6y ago
    Ugh, they're also great for anyone that wants to feed themselves with their software, whether self employed or not. God forbid people use a license that makes it easier to turn a profit so they don't have to beg to stay afloat.

zelphirkalt 6y ago

> I think that's the fundamental reason open source licenses such as BSD and MIT have caught on - they centre on the need of the developer to get productive work done, not on the far more abstract principle of the home PC user being able to recompile their own software stack from source. That is reducing what GPL is about quite a lot. For example it is equally important, if not more, that modifications in most cases have to be contributed back to the community, which means getting companies to take part in the action, instead of simply using work of others, profitting from it and never contributing anything back.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
> For example it is equally important, if not more, that modifications in most cases have to be contributed back to the community, which means getting companies to take part in the action, instead of simply using work of others, profitting from it and never contributing anything back. This is wrong. There is no requirement to contribute back to the community, just the requirement that changes (or rather, the source with your changes) be made available to your users. This means they could mail CDs of their code to their paying customers only, if they so choose. A far cry from "contributing back to the community", closer to something like "a pain in the ass."
- mimixco 6y ago
  Exactly. I don't know where the phrase "contribute to the community" came from but it's not in the GPL license text. All you have to do to comply is make your own source code available on request to users who accept your license, along with installation instructions to build the running product. That's not contributing anything to the other dev's community.
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  And really that's a beautiful thing. If I'm going to rely on your software. I want a way to keep supporting myself if you go out of business or you deem my suggestions unworthy.
  - 6y ago

asimovfan 6y ago

You are comparing GPL to a product as if it should aim to reach some sort of market penetration. GPL is not necessarily for developers to get productive work done. It is for people to ensure maximum benevolence with their work for everyone and take the highest moral position. I believe what needs market penetration is this ideal, rather than the GPL itself. GPL is for people who already hold this kind of ideal. They are looking for exactly this. I don't say you shouldn't ever make money from your work or never use any copyright/MIT/BSD licenses. Most people are not filthy rich and need the money. What I am saying is GPL is not for this, and does not have the requirement to be convenient or framed in a different way than the heroic selfless endeavor it is, in any sense.

codeguro2 6y ago
> GPL is not necessarily for developers to get productive work done. Try getting some productive work done without the source. Like fixing a printer of a proprietary driver, for instance. No, the GPL is about exactly about getting practical work done. That's why it emphasizes so much on the 4 essential freedoms, and why 3 of those 4 freedoms are essentially the same thing "the freedom to tinker with the source code and share that information with other developers who can tinker with it some more and do the same".

bergstromm466 6y ago

> the intent of the law is genuinely to guarantee access to the fruits of one's intellectual labour This seems a naive take when considering that it's Corporations who hold the most Intellectual Property[1] (Patents and Copyrights) and are the 'customers' or beneficiaries of Intellectual Property laws and systems. It's Corporations who focus on IP acquisition (and thus monopolization) strategies (e.g. Google buying smaller startups to add their Intellectual Property to it's repertoire). ...in other words, the likelyhood of average Joe being helped by the Intellectual Property system to get access to the fruits of his labor is not a common situation at all. Most new innovations are the result of access and engagement with existing Corporate Intellectual Property (plus an expensive education). [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html