8 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- mimixco 6y ago
  Surely. We can have both. Red Hat, for example, gives you the source after you pay for a license. This is how it was at IBM years ago in the mainframe world.
- codeguro2 6y ago
  This is precisely why I love the GPL.
zelphirkalt 6y ago
As far as I know, when you make modifications, you need to release the modified source code together with the product. That means, that you can not keep it a secret, that only you know, unless no one ever buys your product. I am not so sure about what you say about releasing it to only paying customers. That might be true. In that case one of the original developers could buy 1 license or the community could pay for 1 license and this way get the source code. Then the developers of the modification would get some pay and the original developers would get the source code.
- est31 6y ago
  The GPL gives you multiple options to comply with it. Roughly summarizing, either you put the source code onto the same medium that contains the object code, which is what xyzzy_plugh is alluding to, or you can put it onto a web server and accompany the object form with a written offer that it's on that web server. See section "6 Conveying Non-Source Forms" of the GPL. The GPL only requires you to make the source code accessible to those people who also get the binary from you, not everyone, but most entities just allow downloads for anybody. It's more expensive to implement checking than it's to just allow downloads for everyone. xyzzy_plugh is splitting hairs here.
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    I'm really not splitting hairs. "Contributing back to the community" sorta implies you're opening a PR, following coding guidelines, writing tests even perhaps. What happens in practice is corps just hack everything together and rush stuff out the door -- no communities want those contributions. It's rare that these sort of releases contain anything novel or useful. Take a look at the OSS releases for Amazon's products (Echo, FireTV) and be prepared to be underwhelmed.
    - mimixco 6y ago
      Exactly this. Most of the software others will build with GPL'd stuff isn't interesting to the owner of the original code. They're not doing it to fix bugs. They're doing it to add stuff for their own products. No community of the original software's devs is going to want the output of everyone else's surrounding code or customizations.
tsimionescu 6y ago
That is a distinction without a difference, mostly - since those paying customers are free to then publish the source code they got from you for free for everyone. The theoretical possibility of charging money for distributing GPL software has not materialized for any company. You can get RHEL for free if you want, for example, and build sell your own devices with it.
- njarboe 6y ago
  You can't charge money for distributing GPL software because with high speed internet that is very cheap and easy to do. Competition will and has brought that cost to about zero. And that is a good thing. Everyone now has free access to a huge amount software with source code.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    So how can a software company make money, in an ideal world where all code is free?
    - njarboe 6y ago
      In software support, training, and adding/fixing bugs for a fee. Redhat was a large company that did this. If the world stabilized on a few software products that did what people wanted to do, like and office suite, that would be great. No more work needs to be done on it. Just a little maintenance going forward. Like roads. They cost a lot to build, but little to allow someone to drive on them.
codeguro2 6y ago
There is nothing preventing those users to publish that exact thing for the world to see. The GPL ensures that they can absolutely do that, so your point is moot.

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.

mimixco 6y ago
Surely. We can have both. Red Hat, for example, gives you the source after you pay for a license. This is how it was at IBM years ago in the mainframe world.
codeguro2 6y ago
This is precisely why I love the GPL.

zelphirkalt 6y ago

As far as I know, when you make modifications, you need to release the modified source code together with the product. That means, that you can not keep it a secret, that only you know, unless no one ever buys your product. I am not so sure about what you say about releasing it to only paying customers. That might be true. In that case one of the original developers could buy 1 license or the community could pay for 1 license and this way get the source code. Then the developers of the modification would get some pay and the original developers would get the source code.

est31 6y ago
The GPL gives you multiple options to comply with it. Roughly summarizing, either you put the source code onto the same medium that contains the object code, which is what xyzzy_plugh is alluding to, or you can put it onto a web server and accompany the object form with a written offer that it's on that web server. See section "6 Conveying Non-Source Forms" of the GPL. The GPL only requires you to make the source code accessible to those people who also get the binary from you, not everyone, but most entities just allow downloads for anybody. It's more expensive to implement checking than it's to just allow downloads for everyone. xyzzy_plugh is splitting hairs here.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  I'm really not splitting hairs. "Contributing back to the community" sorta implies you're opening a PR, following coding guidelines, writing tests even perhaps. What happens in practice is corps just hack everything together and rush stuff out the door -- no communities want those contributions. It's rare that these sort of releases contain anything novel or useful. Take a look at the OSS releases for Amazon's products (Echo, FireTV) and be prepared to be underwhelmed.
  - mimixco 6y ago
    Exactly this. Most of the software others will build with GPL'd stuff isn't interesting to the owner of the original code. They're not doing it to fix bugs. They're doing it to add stuff for their own products. No community of the original software's devs is going to want the output of everyone else's surrounding code or customizations.

tsimionescu 6y ago

That is a distinction without a difference, mostly - since those paying customers are free to then publish the source code they got from you for free for everyone. The theoretical possibility of charging money for distributing GPL software has not materialized for any company. You can get RHEL for free if you want, for example, and build sell your own devices with it.

njarboe 6y ago
You can't charge money for distributing GPL software because with high speed internet that is very cheap and easy to do. Competition will and has brought that cost to about zero. And that is a good thing. Everyone now has free access to a huge amount software with source code.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  So how can a software company make money, in an ideal world where all code is free?
  - njarboe 6y ago
    In software support, training, and adding/fixing bugs for a fee. Redhat was a large company that did this. If the world stabilized on a few software products that did what people wanted to do, like and office suite, that would be great. No more work needs to be done on it. Just a little maintenance going forward. Like roads. They cost a lot to build, but little to allow someone to drive on them.

codeguro2 6y ago

There is nothing preventing those users to publish that exact thing for the world to see. The GPL ensures that they can absolutely do that, so your point is moot.