4 ms·

I think the GPL and FSF etc lost momentum with their GPLv3 push. I know that was the case for me. I really liked GPL (v2). Then GPLv3 came out and I was like hu

I think the GPL and FSF etc lost momentum with their GPLv3 push. I know that was the case for me. I really liked GPL (v2). Then GPLv3 came out and I was like huh? After that I became much more open to the lighter versions of things MIT / BSD. GPLv3 is not really workable in terms of preserving developer freedom to do what they want with code (as long as they share their code back). Obviously the powers that be disagreed and the GPL has been "upgraded" to v3, but was never impressed, and now much happier to contribute to MIT / BSD licensed products (which do allow you as the developer to do what you want with the code). Would be curious if anyone has analyzed this.

edgyquant 5y ago
I think the FSF appeared at a critical juncture and that the tools they built, that were totally free, helped to fix the direction that software was going. With the rise of Linux as the working GNU kernel an entire generation (or two) became aware and appreciative of open source which then went on to become the backbone of most of the internet and now those companies are some of (if not the) largest contributors to open source. With that said you’re right, with GPLv3 they moved the fight into new domains that aren’t as obvious or really “as big of a deal” to a majority of people. Also with the rise of things like JavaScript GNU, under Stallman, became the old man crying at the children. Stallman hated the rise of “non-trivial” JavaScript and refuses to work with proprietary code so GNU could never have developed e.g. React or Tensorflow. We now have a new generation of open source tooling that was developed more in spite of the FSF than by it. The current environment will in turn spark a new generation of tooling down the line that is even more removed from the likes of Stallman; who once responded to a request I sent to work on a JS library advertised on the GNU website with the fact that I should call it F/LOSS instead of open source (and nothing else.) So while I respect the FSF for the work they did in creating what we have today, the time where they were leading the fight to save software is long passed. They won in some ways and the world is better for it, but they lost in others and I’m not sure the world is that worse because of it. Having trade secrets isn’t completely a bad thing as it allows competition and different implementations, though that part is simply my opinion I suppose.
cbsmith 5y ago
The irony is the GPLv3 does more to address some of the problems we have with open source than most other licenses, but was rejected by many due to a lack of concern for these issues.
bawolff 5y ago
You can still use gplv2 if you like. The auto-update clause is optional afaik, and lots of projects are gpl2-only. I suppose you're right though in as much as it splits mindshare.
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  "The auto-update clause is optional" -> Yes, I confirm this is true. The sample license header here [1] says: > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. That is only a suggested header. From Linux kernel here [2], you can see: > under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html [2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING
m463 5y ago
I remember RMS saying that the license was based on these freedoms he enumerated, but after releasing software under GPL v2 he found out he had to explicitly add the freedom to actually RUN the software. Remember that the idea of the GPL is the authors preserve and propagate the rights for the USERS. He also once said "proprietary software subjugates people", which I thought was sort of over-the-top to say, but over time I think software in this era of dark patterns and privacy has unfortunately become very obvious.

edgyquant 5y ago

I think the FSF appeared at a critical juncture and that the tools they built, that were totally free, helped to fix the direction that software was going. With the rise of Linux as the working GNU kernel an entire generation (or two) became aware and appreciative of open source which then went on to become the backbone of most of the internet and now those companies are some of (if not the) largest contributors to open source. With that said you’re right, with GPLv3 they moved the fight into new domains that aren’t as obvious or really “as big of a deal” to a majority of people. Also with the rise of things like JavaScript GNU, under Stallman, became the old man crying at the children. Stallman hated the rise of “non-trivial” JavaScript and refuses to work with proprietary code so GNU could never have developed e.g. React or Tensorflow. We now have a new generation of open source tooling that was developed more in spite of the FSF than by it. The current environment will in turn spark a new generation of tooling down the line that is even more removed from the likes of Stallman; who once responded to a request I sent to work on a JS library advertised on the GNU website with the fact that I should call it F/LOSS instead of open source (and nothing else.) So while I respect the FSF for the work they did in creating what we have today, the time where they were leading the fight to save software is long passed. They won in some ways and the world is better for it, but they lost in others and I’m not sure the world is that worse because of it. Having trade secrets isn’t completely a bad thing as it allows competition and different implementations, though that part is simply my opinion I suppose.

cbsmith 5y ago

The irony is the GPLv3 does more to address some of the problems we have with open source than most other licenses, but was rejected by many due to a lack of concern for these issues.

bawolff 5y ago

You can still use gplv2 if you like. The auto-update clause is optional afaik, and lots of projects are gpl2-only. I suppose you're right though in as much as it splits mindshare.

throwaway2037 5y ago
"The auto-update clause is optional" -> Yes, I confirm this is true. The sample license header here [1] says: > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. That is only a suggested header. From Linux kernel here [2], you can see: > under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html [2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING

m463 5y ago

I remember RMS saying that the license was based on these freedoms he enumerated, but after releasing software under GPL v2 he found out he had to explicitly add the freedom to actually RUN the software. Remember that the idea of the GPL is the authors preserve and propagate the rights for the USERS. He also once said "proprietary software subjugates people", which I thought was sort of over-the-top to say, but over time I think software in this era of dark patterns and privacy has unfortunately become very obvious.