3 ms·

Are you referring to AGPL? Or RSAL/SSPL?

by chomp 5y ago

bombcar 5y ago
The second - in theory GPLv3 "solves" the Tivoization problem but the "cloud service" problem now exists - and honestly I think BOTH the GPLv3 and SSPL and such licenses are bandaids on an underlying problem - GPLv3 trying to solve a hardware licensing issue, and SSPL trying to solve a business model problem. The other side-effect of all this license proliferation is that companies clearly "know" where they stand with them - and are scared to move to new ones, especially if they have "patent side effects" that the lawyers don't want to investigate or stick their neck out on. Apple stopped with the GPLv2 and hasn't moved forward in anything GPLv3; sure you can argue they never contributed much but the license should be about source code freedom - and it has morphed to be so much more.
- simion314 5y ago
  >but the license should be about source code freedom This is not true, GPL is about "user freedom", repeat it 3 times, "USER" freedom. This is why it gates hate from some developers or entrepreneurs here, it removes the freedom of the developer to abuse the user or in recent cases companies to profit from community work and not give anything back or even harming the original project with FUD or unfair competition.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    The developer is a user; in fact the whole point of the GPLv2 is that it should be the case that users CAN be developers. GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software; it's analogous to the "software cannot be used for evil" or "this software cannot be used in tanks" clauses on other licenses. And as Linus is arguing, it's perhaps a perfectly FINE license, but it is NOT the GPLv2 and it has different aims and desires: and he gives examples where if the kernel had the "and any other version" the GPLv3 could be used to do exactly what the GPLv2 is supposed to prevent - someone taking the code and modifying it and distributing it in a way so that he can't use the modifications.
    - dTal 5y ago
      >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software No it doesn't. You can do whatever you want with GPLv3 software, provided you don't distribute it. It's disingenuous to use the word "developer" to equate "person who edits their own software" with "person who distributes software to others". Or if you disagree, can you articulate exactly what USER freedom you think is being infringed? "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face."
    - marcodiego 5y ago
      >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software GPLv3 puts requirements on what a DEVELOPER can do with the code
    - simion314 5y ago
      > The developer is a user then he should not put restrictions on other users then himself. The point is that all users should have the freedoms not only the developers, the only limitation is that you can't abuse users. A good example would be a quote I heard in a play of Uncle Tom's cabin (this was a translated and adapted so it might not be present exactly like this in the book). So in the play a french and some americans debate slavery and the salve owner says something like "America is the land of the free because we are free to own slaves" , like that slaver some companies and developers want to be more free to abuse others (put DRM to lock people, create proprietary formats, spy on users, nag them etc). IMO we all are free to chose the license for our work, and if anyone wants to make his work BSD or proprietary it is his rights, but they should not complain when someone chose GPL because he decided that he is concerned about user abuse.
- m463 5y ago
  Affero GPL is for cloud stuff. > the license should be about source code freedom no, it is about USER freedom. You can USE gpl software for any purpose whatsoever. Do anything you like with it. modify it, run it, it is yours. It's just that when you redistribute it, you have to pass on that freedom. I don't know why people in business freak out about this. They have money. Pay people to write software. If they want to redistribute software, just get MIT stuff, fork and close it, make modifications that restrict the use/redistribution, then sell it.

Are you referring to AGPL? Or RSAL/SSPL?

by chomp 5y ago

Are you referring to AGPL? Or RSAL/SSPL?

The second - in theory GPLv3 "solves" the Tivoization problem but the "cloud service" problem now exists - and honestly I think BOTH the GPLv3 and SSPL and such licenses are bandaids on an underlying problem - GPLv3 trying to solve a hardware licensing issue, and SSPL trying to solve a business model problem. The other side-effect of all this license proliferation is that companies clearly "know" where they stand with them - and are scared to move to new ones, especially if they have "patent side effects" that the lawyers don't want to investigate or stick their neck out on. Apple stopped with the GPLv2 and hasn't moved forward in anything GPLv3; sure you can argue they never contributed much but the license should be about source code freedom - and it has morphed to be so much more.

simion314 5y ago
>but the license should be about source code freedom This is not true, GPL is about "user freedom", repeat it 3 times, "USER" freedom. This is why it gates hate from some developers or entrepreneurs here, it removes the freedom of the developer to abuse the user or in recent cases companies to profit from community work and not give anything back or even harming the original project with FUD or unfair competition.
- bombcar 5y ago
  The developer is a user; in fact the whole point of the GPLv2 is that it should be the case that users CAN be developers. GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software; it's analogous to the "software cannot be used for evil" or "this software cannot be used in tanks" clauses on other licenses. And as Linus is arguing, it's perhaps a perfectly FINE license, but it is NOT the GPLv2 and it has different aims and desires: and he gives examples where if the kernel had the "and any other version" the GPLv3 could be used to do exactly what the GPLv2 is supposed to prevent - someone taking the code and modifying it and distributing it in a way so that he can't use the modifications.
  - dTal 5y ago
    >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software No it doesn't. You can do whatever you want with GPLv3 software, provided you don't distribute it. It's disingenuous to use the word "developer" to equate "person who edits their own software" with "person who distributes software to others". Or if you disagree, can you articulate exactly what USER freedom you think is being infringed? "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face."
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    >GPLv3 puts restrictions on what a USER can do with the software GPLv3 puts requirements on what a DEVELOPER can do with the code
  - simion314 5y ago
    > The developer is a user then he should not put restrictions on other users then himself. The point is that all users should have the freedoms not only the developers, the only limitation is that you can't abuse users. A good example would be a quote I heard in a play of Uncle Tom's cabin (this was a translated and adapted so it might not be present exactly like this in the book). So in the play a french and some americans debate slavery and the salve owner says something like "America is the land of the free because we are free to own slaves" , like that slaver some companies and developers want to be more free to abuse others (put DRM to lock people, create proprietary formats, spy on users, nag them etc). IMO we all are free to chose the license for our work, and if anyone wants to make his work BSD or proprietary it is his rights, but they should not complain when someone chose GPL because he decided that he is concerned about user abuse.
m463 5y ago
Affero GPL is for cloud stuff. > the license should be about source code freedom no, it is about USER freedom. You can USE gpl software for any purpose whatsoever. Do anything you like with it. modify it, run it, it is yours. It's just that when you redistribute it, you have to pass on that freedom. I don't know why people in business freak out about this. They have money. Pay people to write software. If they want to redistribute software, just get MIT stuff, fork and close it, make modifications that restrict the use/redistribution, then sell it.