21 ms·

The premise that copyleft licenses force or encourage devs to "contribute back to the community" (the most common claim) is ridiculous. Contribute what? And to

The premise that copyleft licenses force or encourage devs to "contribute back to the community" (the most common claim) is ridiculous. Contribute what? And to whose community? Let's say you've written a library and published it under GPL and it gets used in a cellphone or an automobile. The "community" of users for that paid product is not the same as the users for your dev library. In fact, most commercial software innards don't have a "community" at all. I think that's a complete fiction. What they have is customers who pay. When the automaker changes that code, do you really want it back? Are you really going to publish their automobile version or cellphone version of your library back into your "community?" If its a simple bug fix, you might, but again this big company isn't republishing your software just to fix your bugs. They've modified it for their application. Do you want or need their mods? Are their devs in the same "community" as yours? I don't think so. GPL tries to reach into the surrounding and supporting code that the commercial entity writes and somehow force that company to "contribute" that code back to a non-existent community of people. What right does the first developer have over any code that the second dev wrote? That idea that the first author could reach into my code or my product and have anything to say about it is antithetical to the values of open source software right from the start. Non-permissive licenses use the tools of the enemy to try to do something that sounds good on the surface but in practice is immoral and largely unenforceable. I would argue that, far from encouraging liberal software use and development, restrictive FOSS licenses like GPL and its cousins prevent a great deal of software from ever being commercialized and also prevent great products from reaching users because no one bothers to commercialize them. If you love our industry, please help your fellow devs by giving them the maximum ability to use your work in their own work so that they can create businesses, pay the bills, hire other devs, and so on and so forth.

craigsmansion 6y ago
> GPL tries to reach into the surrounding and supporting code that the commercial entity writes and somehow force that company to "contribute" Well, maybe that "commercial entity" could have picked a different library to begin with, and your rant has no bearing on the GPL at all? > When the automaker changes that code, do you really want it back? Well, if you buy that car, yes?! Because that's the very stipulation you set forth when you published the library. > If you love our industry, What a load of bollocks.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nextaccountic 6y ago
The automaker might port device drivers and other stuff to the GPL code (most likely Linux). Linux devs want it. This is how most Android drivers were opened, for example. If some automaker chooses Android, any kernel-level improvements will eventually flow back to the mainline. Unfortunately, improvements above the kernel stack will keep closed, since the Android userland don't adopt GPL as much. edit: for example, OpenWRT was created through a GPL enforcement lawsuit! Router companies weren't complying with GPL and were closing their kernel (which had in-house drivers). The companies were sued and had to open their code. You would think that their customers weren't interested in this, but actually.. many use openwrt to this day (arguably, there's even an environmental angle to this - openwrt increases the longevity of the router by having it do more stuff with the same hardware, reducing e-waste)
- creata 6y ago
  Thank you for the real examples of GPL benefiting a project. Too much of the copyleft debate happens in the abstract.
phkahler 6y ago
>> When the automaker changes that code, do you really want it back? The license was never about "the community". In this case it's about the owner of the car having the ability to modify it. Most people dont want to modify the software they use, but those that use these licenses want the people who use their code to have that option. >> If you love our industry, please help your fellow devs by giving them the maximum ability to use your work in their own work so that they can create businesses, pay the bills, hire other devs, and so on and so forth. That's quite literally asking to use someone else's work for your own profit. Someone else asked about royalties and I think I see room for a license that would prevent such exploitation without compensation. That would be a commercial license.
sideeffffect 6y ago
Yes, "copyleft licenses force or encourage devs to contribute back to the community" is a ridiculous cliche (or misguided, or misleading, to be more charitable), but for different reasons than you talk about. The point of Copyleft (and the Free software movement in general) is to ensure that the user of a computer (and the software in it), a human being, is free -- meaning she can do with it what she pleases. Use if for whatever, study what it does, change it, share the original or modified version -- those are the four freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html . Humans can't be free, if they're not in control of the computers/software that they use. The Free software community considers it unethical, if a cellphone owner or an automobile owner can't do with her device (including the software it runs) what she wants, even though she bought it with her hard earned money.
- nextaccountic 6y ago
  It's almost as if the real owner of an iPhone is Apple and not the person that bought it. The user needs to hack their own phone to gain administrative access (!!!).

craigsmansion 6y ago

> GPL tries to reach into the surrounding and supporting code that the commercial entity writes and somehow force that company to "contribute" Well, maybe that "commercial entity" could have picked a different library to begin with, and your rant has no bearing on the GPL at all? > When the automaker changes that code, do you really want it back? Well, if you buy that car, yes?! Because that's the very stipulation you set forth when you published the library. > If you love our industry, What a load of bollocks.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nextaccountic 6y ago

The automaker might port device drivers and other stuff to the GPL code (most likely Linux). Linux devs want it. This is how most Android drivers were opened, for example. If some automaker chooses Android, any kernel-level improvements will eventually flow back to the mainline. Unfortunately, improvements above the kernel stack will keep closed, since the Android userland don't adopt GPL as much. edit: for example, OpenWRT was created through a GPL enforcement lawsuit! Router companies weren't complying with GPL and were closing their kernel (which had in-house drivers). The companies were sued and had to open their code. You would think that their customers weren't interested in this, but actually.. many use openwrt to this day (arguably, there's even an environmental angle to this - openwrt increases the longevity of the router by having it do more stuff with the same hardware, reducing e-waste)

creata 6y ago
Thank you for the real examples of GPL benefiting a project. Too much of the copyleft debate happens in the abstract.

phkahler 6y ago

>> When the automaker changes that code, do you really want it back? The license was never about "the community". In this case it's about the owner of the car having the ability to modify it. Most people dont want to modify the software they use, but those that use these licenses want the people who use their code to have that option. >> If you love our industry, please help your fellow devs by giving them the maximum ability to use your work in their own work so that they can create businesses, pay the bills, hire other devs, and so on and so forth. That's quite literally asking to use someone else's work for your own profit. Someone else asked about royalties and I think I see room for a license that would prevent such exploitation without compensation. That would be a commercial license.

sideeffffect 6y ago

Yes, "copyleft licenses force or encourage devs to contribute back to the community" is a ridiculous cliche (or misguided, or misleading, to be more charitable), but for different reasons than you talk about. The point of Copyleft (and the Free software movement in general) is to ensure that the user of a computer (and the software in it), a human being, is free -- meaning she can do with it what she pleases. Use if for whatever, study what it does, change it, share the original or modified version -- those are the four freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html . Humans can't be free, if they're not in control of the computers/software that they use. The Free software community considers it unethical, if a cellphone owner or an automobile owner can't do with her device (including the software it runs) what she wants, even though she bought it with her hard earned money.

nextaccountic 6y ago
It's almost as if the real owner of an iPhone is Apple and not the person that bought it. The user needs to hack their own phone to gain administrative access (!!!).