5 ms·

> I'd have to explain to my commercial clients that there's another $50-100k upcharge due to the architecture change and licensing costs due to GPL restrictions

> I'd have to explain to my commercial clients that there's another $50-100k upcharge due to the architecture change and licensing costs due to GPL restrictions. Your complaint is kind of strange. You're blaming "GPL restrictions" but the cost is for a commercial license.

coldtea 6y ago
Well, if the FOSS license used was e.g. MIT he wouldn't have to buy a commercial license, that's the parent's point. With GPL, he does, because else his clients have to make their own code/project conformant...
- bachmeier 6y ago
  Oh, so it's terrible to pay for software? How awful! Especially ironic because I'm sure the parent isn't working for free.
  - kxyvr 6y ago
    We all pay for software, but it's the amount that really shapes decisions. Most organizations have a dollar limit where we can just charge a purchase card and when they have to seek approval. In this particular case, the software costs are higher than what can likely go onto a p-card, so now it becomes a real pain to acquire. In fact, the software is so expensive that it's cost would like eclipse the cost of the computer itself. So basically, we're looking at a decision where the client can use a more performant library and save $100k as long as they stay off of Apple silicon. That's really the point I'm trying to make and not to criticize anyone for using a GPL license. Moving to these new chips, in many cases, will be a much larger cost to an organization than just the cost of the computer.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Oh, so it's terrible to pay for software? Compared to not paying for it? Yes. >Especially ironic because I'm sure the parent isn't working for free. So? Who said that when you get paid yourself it stops being awful to have to pay for things?
- kxyvr 6y ago
  Yes, that's correct. I write open source software as well and I don't begrudge anyone for licensing under GPL. And, I'm perfectly willing to obtain a commercial license, but I'm going to pass that cost on to my customers. In this particular case, though, the question for them is whether they want Apple silicon bad enough to pay an additional $50-100k in software licensing costs to keep their code private or to just buy an Intel or AMD chip. I know where I'd spend my money.
  - bachmeier 6y ago
    You were pretty specific that it was entirely the fault of the GPL: > I'd have to explain to my commercial clients that there's another $50-100k upcharge due to the architecture change and licensing costs due to GPL restrictions.
    - epistasis 6y ago
      What point are you trying to make here? The poster has been very clear on the mechanics, which are quite understandable, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is it just that you think it does not put the GPL in a positive enough light? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but that's my current best guess
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      It seems clear enough from context that the "GPL restrictions" are that if they used the GPL-licensed compiler, the commercial clients might run into legal issues with their use of it, necessitating that they purchase the commercial license. It's not uncommon for businesses to have a prohibition against using GPL software in not only their shipping products but anywhere in their toolchain. (You can argue that's a counterproductive prohibition, but "your legal department just needs to change their mind on this" may not be an argument a vendor can effectively make.)
      - foolmeonce 6y ago
        I would not make an argument even if I thought a client would accept it. If they are incompetent they will decide to use the GPL code with sloppy oversight, violate the terms of the GPL, then they will hold a little grudge against you for the advice that got them in trouble. Sloppy companies have no internal accountability, so it's your fault. I use GPL code all the time at home and I would license many things GPL, but there's no reason to push GPL software at corporations. They should have limited options and spend money, possibly expanding MIT code, possibly just raising the price of engineers by keeping engineers occupied.
- bawolff 6y ago
  That's still pretty silly. If the thing wasn't open source at all, you would still have to buy a license. If your complaint is boo hoo, some people charge for software...well consider me unsympathetic.
smnrchrds 6y ago
I imagine the conversation with the clients will go like this: - Here is a quote for 100k for adding SuiteSparse to the code. - 100k‽ But I have found on the internet that SuiteSparse is free! Justify your quote. At that point, they will have to explain to the client what GPL is and why they cannot use the free version.

coldtea 6y ago

Well, if the FOSS license used was e.g. MIT he wouldn't have to buy a commercial license, that's the parent's point. With GPL, he does, because else his clients have to make their own code/project conformant...

bachmeier 6y ago
Oh, so it's terrible to pay for software? How awful! Especially ironic because I'm sure the parent isn't working for free.
- kxyvr 6y ago
  We all pay for software, but it's the amount that really shapes decisions. Most organizations have a dollar limit where we can just charge a purchase card and when they have to seek approval. In this particular case, the software costs are higher than what can likely go onto a p-card, so now it becomes a real pain to acquire. In fact, the software is so expensive that it's cost would like eclipse the cost of the computer itself. So basically, we're looking at a decision where the client can use a more performant library and save $100k as long as they stay off of Apple silicon. That's really the point I'm trying to make and not to criticize anyone for using a GPL license. Moving to these new chips, in many cases, will be a much larger cost to an organization than just the cost of the computer.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Oh, so it's terrible to pay for software? Compared to not paying for it? Yes. >Especially ironic because I'm sure the parent isn't working for free. So? Who said that when you get paid yourself it stops being awful to have to pay for things?
kxyvr 6y ago
Yes, that's correct. I write open source software as well and I don't begrudge anyone for licensing under GPL. And, I'm perfectly willing to obtain a commercial license, but I'm going to pass that cost on to my customers. In this particular case, though, the question for them is whether they want Apple silicon bad enough to pay an additional $50-100k in software licensing costs to keep their code private or to just buy an Intel or AMD chip. I know where I'd spend my money.
- bachmeier 6y ago
  You were pretty specific that it was entirely the fault of the GPL: > I'd have to explain to my commercial clients that there's another $50-100k upcharge due to the architecture change and licensing costs due to GPL restrictions.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    What point are you trying to make here? The poster has been very clear on the mechanics, which are quite understandable, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is it just that you think it does not put the GPL in a positive enough light? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but that's my current best guess
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    It seems clear enough from context that the "GPL restrictions" are that if they used the GPL-licensed compiler, the commercial clients might run into legal issues with their use of it, necessitating that they purchase the commercial license. It's not uncommon for businesses to have a prohibition against using GPL software in not only their shipping products but anywhere in their toolchain. (You can argue that's a counterproductive prohibition, but "your legal department just needs to change their mind on this" may not be an argument a vendor can effectively make.)
    - foolmeonce 6y ago
      I would not make an argument even if I thought a client would accept it. If they are incompetent they will decide to use the GPL code with sloppy oversight, violate the terms of the GPL, then they will hold a little grudge against you for the advice that got them in trouble. Sloppy companies have no internal accountability, so it's your fault. I use GPL code all the time at home and I would license many things GPL, but there's no reason to push GPL software at corporations. They should have limited options and spend money, possibly expanding MIT code, possibly just raising the price of engineers by keeping engineers occupied.
bawolff 6y ago
That's still pretty silly. If the thing wasn't open source at all, you would still have to buy a license. If your complaint is boo hoo, some people charge for software...well consider me unsympathetic.

smnrchrds 6y ago

I imagine the conversation with the clients will go like this: - Here is a quote for 100k for adding SuiteSparse to the code. - 100k‽ But I have found on the internet that SuiteSparse is free! Justify your quote. At that point, they will have to explain to the client what GPL is and why they cannot use the free version.