4 ms·

There are in fact many licenses that meet the open source definition, and any concerns about the restrictions of one might be dealt with by looking only at proj

There are in fact many licenses that meet the open source definition, and any concerns about the restrictions of one might be dealt with by looking only at projects based on other licenses: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category For example, basing a business on GPL as you stated may be a problem because it would compel everything in the stack (including something unique built on top of established code) to be opened up...so it would be hard to build something truly competitive without showing all your cards to your competitors. Other open source licenses such as MIT's have fewer restrictions and amount to preserving copyrights and the right to reuse but without any warranties. Of course you can only build on code that is "compatible" with the license you choose. There may be solutions that are only available under GPL licenses, in which case you have to decide to live with those restrictions or build your own.

gaius 15y ago
That's not strictly true: the end-run around the GPL is SaaS - if you are not distributing your software, merely running it on your own servers, then you can keep what you've built on a GPL foundation as secret as you like. The most high-profile example of this approach is Google. They do give away a lot of stuff true, but their core tech, like BigTable, is kept under lock and key.
- starter 15y ago
  THAT is what I'm after! The SaaS market is the primary vertical my ventures need to dominate at the moment. Distributing software is really not on the list for the foreseeable future. I think you discovered the answer I needed. I'm now confident that the GPL won't be an issue for the time being since most of the code will be staying on our servers. In the future, other licenses may be worth my time to investigate for new products.
- makecheck 15y ago
  Technically true perhaps, but morally gray at best. As I see it, a project that's using the GPL is making a pretty clear statement of their intent, regardless of whatever slimy legal loopholes may have been left unclosed. A GPL project author probably doesn't want other people harvesting their work and keeping the changes secret, even if there are technically ways around the GPL's distribution clauses.
  - gaius 15y ago
    FWIW I agree with you, but it is how it is.
    - starter 15y ago
      I'm confused. Are you saying that using private GPL software in the SaaS vertical is NOT ok?
      - gaius 15y ago
        I'm saying that while it violates the spirit of the GPL, it is nonetheless completely permitted. As I say, Google do it.
        starter 15y ago
        I see. It all comes down to morals. With all the Open Source Community has given me, I'm not interested in stepping on toes. Not sure what the future holds but thanks for making your perspective crystal clear!
dgroves 15y ago
Of course, many very successful businesses are built on the GPL and rarely is a competitive advantage, so advantages that the entire company hinges its success on denying people their freedom. I call bullshit on that whole argument.
- starter 15y ago
  Good point. I'm all about freedom and our new economy is a perfect place to support things like the GPL.
rbanffy 15y ago
> basing a business on GPL as you stated may be a problem because it would compel everything in the stack (including something unique built on top of established code) to be opened up... This is a very rare situation. If you link to GPL code, then your code has to, at least, grant GPL rights to your users. However, just using GPL code to build your code is not. I use Emacs to write code that is either interpreted by Python or compiled by GCC and nothing I write needs to be licensed as GPL. A lot of OSX is compiled with GCC and many programs on the OSX install DVD are BSD licensed. Unless you link to a GPL-only library, you are probably safe. As for other licenses, there are licenses like BSD and Apache. You can pick code licensed under them and use it as part of proprietary code you release. OTOH, your competitor may use the BSD-ish code you release as parts of your competing product.
- makecheck 15y ago
  The ability to link freely isn't automatic in GPL libraries, it is something that GNU explicitly adds as an exception to the license of GCC; otherwise, GCC is pure GPL [1]. The GNU C library is a related runtime that also explicitly allows linking to proprietary software because it is under the LGPL and not the GPL [2]. What it boils down to is that GPL by itself does not allow reuse without similar disclosures of code, etc. and only a different license (like LGPL) or a documented exception to the license (like in GCC) will change that. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html#Copying http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html#Copying
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    I did not imply you could use GPL code as part of proprietary code you distribute - quite the contrary. That's, BTW, what the LGPL and the exceptions you mention are for.

gaius 15y ago

That's not strictly true: the end-run around the GPL is SaaS - if you are not distributing your software, merely running it on your own servers, then you can keep what you've built on a GPL foundation as secret as you like. The most high-profile example of this approach is Google. They do give away a lot of stuff true, but their core tech, like BigTable, is kept under lock and key.

starter 15y ago
THAT is what I'm after! The SaaS market is the primary vertical my ventures need to dominate at the moment. Distributing software is really not on the list for the foreseeable future. I think you discovered the answer I needed. I'm now confident that the GPL won't be an issue for the time being since most of the code will be staying on our servers. In the future, other licenses may be worth my time to investigate for new products.
makecheck 15y ago
Technically true perhaps, but morally gray at best. As I see it, a project that's using the GPL is making a pretty clear statement of their intent, regardless of whatever slimy legal loopholes may have been left unclosed. A GPL project author probably doesn't want other people harvesting their work and keeping the changes secret, even if there are technically ways around the GPL's distribution clauses.
- gaius 15y ago
  FWIW I agree with you, but it is how it is.
  - starter 15y ago
    I'm confused. Are you saying that using private GPL software in the SaaS vertical is NOT ok?
    - gaius 15y ago
      I'm saying that while it violates the spirit of the GPL, it is nonetheless completely permitted. As I say, Google do it.
      - starter 15y ago
        I see. It all comes down to morals. With all the Open Source Community has given me, I'm not interested in stepping on toes. Not sure what the future holds but thanks for making your perspective crystal clear!

dgroves 15y ago

Of course, many very successful businesses are built on the GPL and rarely is a competitive advantage, so advantages that the entire company hinges its success on denying people their freedom. I call bullshit on that whole argument.

starter 15y ago
Good point. I'm all about freedom and our new economy is a perfect place to support things like the GPL.

rbanffy 15y ago

> basing a business on GPL as you stated may be a problem because it would compel everything in the stack (including something unique built on top of established code) to be opened up... This is a very rare situation. If you link to GPL code, then your code has to, at least, grant GPL rights to your users. However, just using GPL code to build your code is not. I use Emacs to write code that is either interpreted by Python or compiled by GCC and nothing I write needs to be licensed as GPL. A lot of OSX is compiled with GCC and many programs on the OSX install DVD are BSD licensed. Unless you link to a GPL-only library, you are probably safe. As for other licenses, there are licenses like BSD and Apache. You can pick code licensed under them and use it as part of proprietary code you release. OTOH, your competitor may use the BSD-ish code you release as parts of your competing product.

makecheck 15y ago
The ability to link freely isn't automatic in GPL libraries, it is something that GNU explicitly adds as an exception to the license of GCC; otherwise, GCC is pure GPL [1]. The GNU C library is a related runtime that also explicitly allows linking to proprietary software because it is under the LGPL and not the GPL [2]. What it boils down to is that GPL by itself does not allow reuse without similar disclosures of code, etc. and only a different license (like LGPL) or a documented exception to the license (like in GCC) will change that. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html#Copying http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html#Copying
- rbanffy 15y ago
  I did not imply you could use GPL code as part of proprietary code you distribute - quite the contrary. That's, BTW, what the LGPL and the exceptions you mention are for.