56 ms·

“I wish I could have licensed the Id source code releases as BSD”

• epaga 5y ago
  I'm still bummed out that for years, GPL was the "standard" go-to open source license. So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Those two things do not have to be synonyms. I'd much rather allow the second if it means tolerating the first. (Edit: Seeing the downvotes, I'd be genuinely interested in counter-arguments or thoughts on this) (Edit 2: Just because it keeps coming up, let me make absolutely clear that I do NOT in any way think GPL might never be a valid choice, nor that anyone, myself included, should feel "entitled" to "free as in *.*" code.)
  • CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
    Why does the GPL license make it "useless for any commercial projects whatsoever"? Many commercial projects use GPL software. The only thing you have to do is provide sources under the same license if you release binaries. If you're not even willing to do that I understand some people rather have you not use their software.
    • epaga 5y ago
      "Not even"? This is a huge requirement for most cases. A small GPL library for, say, some statistics calculation, would mean an entire product's source code would need to be released if it used the library.
      • 3np 5y ago
        In that case you’re very free to not use such a GPL library.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
      • dspillett 5y ago
        Exactly as intended, by most people choosing GPL. For a small libraries like that there is probably the option of negotiating a different license for your use. If the larger software is so much more expansive than the little GPL covered work and so valuable, then the commercial interest presumably has the resources to either write their own or license a commercial variant. I find a lot of complaints about the GPL come down to "why can't I do what I want to do with your stuff?" and the obvious answer, started before the question is even asked, is "because that is what we don't want". It isn't one extreme getting in the way and being a bad guy, it is the two ends of the spectrum being incompatible by default. This can be dealt with amicably by either negotiation or moving on and leaving the other "side" to do their thing without you. IMO trying to frame it, as some very much do with comments about viral licensing and such, as good-vs-bad, is either naive, entitled, or bad in itself, or some mix of the three.
        • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
          "there is probably the option of negotiating a different license for your use." I feel most people don't understand that their projects are unbillable and "negotiating" is not an option. If you project is avaliable through AWS/GCP console I could "pay" at my discresion. If there was a clear price and billing details, I can email my boss and get it authorised If something needs to be negotiated, we have to get senior stakeholders involved - those people don't move for less than 100k, you will never get paid.
          • stavros 5y ago
            This is a great point, and something that definitely needs to change. However, as you say, the solution to "you don't have an easy way for me to pay you" isn't best solved by "so make your stuff free".
          • elevader 5y ago
            I'd guess that most simply don't care as this is really just an issue for the company, not the author. If the project is licensed with MIT/BSD it still isn't really likely that the company will contribute/donate/whatever. So I'd argue that companies not wanting to negotiate doesn't really change anything for >90% of OS projects, they would not gain anything with a more permissive license either.
      • mannerheim 5y ago
        You could alternatively go to the owner of the copyright for the software and pay for a license to use it in proprietary software. This is commonly done (see Qt).
      • jefftk 5y ago
        That's why GPL proponents typically use LGPL for libraries
      • x4e 5y ago
        If it is so small then just write your own alternative. Otherwise it sounds like the small library is actually quite valuable and perhaps such a license is justifiable.
  • matkoniecz 5y ago
    Why GPL makes them useless? In my view, if your business requires leeching on unpaid work without contributing back I am happy about my code being useless for you.
    • epaga 5y ago
      GPL makes "them" (especially small one-off libraries) useless because even the smallest part can not be used without therefore needing to "contribute back" the ENTIRE app. (edited to clarify I don't mean ALL projects become useless through GPL)
      • drran 5y ago
        Which is very useful feature for me, the author of GPL'ed code.
        • trasz 5y ago
          Making your code useless to some of potential users is a useful feature?
          • malka 5y ago
            I do not care if "potential user" is big corp that do not intend to contribute back. So yeah, it is a feature.
            • trasz 5y ago
              Still, how preventing said corp from using this software help you, or anyone else?
              • ric2b 5y ago
                Less time wasted on free support requests would be one way.
              • 5y ago
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • saurik 5y ago
    The GNU Foundation--and the GPL--put one thing at its most important focus: that "users"--the people who are actually using the software and entrusting it with their data or their lives--have guaranteed freedoms. People--such as myself--who use the GPL believe that these freedoms are extremely important: that "users" should be able to get access to the source code for programs and be able to modify them (...and before anyone whines "but users don't know how to modify programs", users know how to hire people to modify programs... most people also don't know how to do woodworking or autowork and yet people routinely get their cabinets done or their cars tricked out: a healthy aftermarket for software exists, and in fact if you look at stuff like jailbreaks for phones, advertising "we jailbreak your phone here" was a good way for such stores to make money). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReKCp9K_Jqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReKCp9K_Jqw If you believe that users should have such freedom, then letting someone who isn't a "user"--and I think this is where people get so stuck on forums like this, as most of the people here are developers and they want everything to be maximally biased in their favor--be able to modify your software and then not grant the freedoms we GPL-folk care about to actual "users" is unacceptable: it simply isn't why we are writing open source software, as the open source part is supposed to be able to benefit "users". So it frankly shouldn't be at all confusing why the GPL has the properties it does: if you think my open source code is so beneficial to your project that you want to use it in your project, you are more than welcome to do so!!! Only... you have to be willing to respect the freedom / rights of "users" that is codified in the license.
    • jokoon 5y ago
      > and then not grant the freedoms we GPL-folk care about to actual "users" is unacceptable: it simply isn't why we are writing open source software, as the open source part is supposed to be able to benefit "users". Why is it unacceptable? Why are people writing open source software then? "Benefiting users" can be done in various ways. In my view, the GPL only manages to protest and protect software against the problems of intellectual property, copyright and capitalism. It's only about politics. I agree with the sentiment, but that's really all it does, it doesn't solve legal problems. I'm curious to see which software licensed under BSD or similar suffered problems where the GPL would have protected them against.
  • pjmlp 5y ago
    You will see my opinions are mostly commercial, however it was GPL and its religious movement (against the man, 70's style) that gave us Linux and GCC. Most likely Windows and UNIX clones would have kept taking their pieces out of BSD, after the 386BSD lawsuit was settled without any other alternatives to reach out for. You can see this from how much Playstation OS gets upstreamed into FreeBSD.
    • trasz 5y ago
      Compared to how much PlayStation OS gets upstreamed into Linux? If you don’t want to upstream, you won’t; if you want, you will. GPL doesn’t force anyone to give back, it merely prevents one from using your project if they don’t.
      • pjmlp 5y ago
        Playstation OS is based on FreeBSD, there is nothing to upstream into Linux. If you want to talk GNU/Linux, then we can switch to Android and ChromeOS, which have indeed done several contributions, in fact many of those left out weren't accepted.
        • trasz 5y ago
          So, as you can see, there's nothing to gain from GPL in this scenario: the choice is between Sony not upstreaming their changes because they don't want to (BSD), or not upstreaming their changes because they couldn't use your code in the first place (GPL). With Android, Google wanted to give their changes back, so they were able to use GPL-ed code. They would give the changes back without GPL too. You can see that with non-GPL-ed projects they contribute to.
          • elevader 5y ago
            I feel like this isn't really framing the issue fairly. The issue isn't that Sony couldn't use GPL code, there is no law preventing them from doing so, they just choose not to (for a variety of reasons, I'd imagine). Just as the could contribute to FreeBSD but choose not to. And OS developers have the choice to prevent Sony (or some other company) from essentially using free labor to make money without any obligation on their side.
  • jobigoud 5y ago
    > GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. GPL advocates love when their code is used by corporation, as long as they don't violate the license. GPL advocates say it's so that improvements to the code are still benefiting the group.
  • ognarb 5y ago
    Blender, Krita, Wordpress, Drupal, Nextcloud and many other projects are commercial and (A)GPL. As long as you share the sources of your modifications, you are free to use their code.
    • paavohtl 5y ago
      All of the projects you mentioned except Nextcloud are owned and developed by non-profits.
      • marcodiego 5y ago
        I'm sure paid developers are not only doing so out of altruism.
      • x4e 5y ago
        And? The point is that they are still able to operate commercially and collect revenue.
  • CyberRabbi 5y ago
    Why do people feel entitled to GPL-licensed work? If you are producing code for a commercial purpose then you have the resources to pay for the code to be written. Just because GPL code is in the open does not mean it’s wasted if companies can’t use it for their own profit.
    • benhurmarcel 5y ago
      If you make a cake and smash it on the floor, I can call it a waste without feeling entitled to get some.
      • ric2b 5y ago
        Awful comparison. GPL is more like a group of people that meet regularly to share cake recipes with the agreement that if anyone has new ideas for those recipes they should share them with whoever they bake cakes for instead of keeping them secret. And then along comes CakeCompany LTD, complaining that they just want to be part of the group to learn recipes for free without sharing any ideas back, because it would be bad for business, and calling the group a bunch of idiot zealots that are wasting cake recipes by not letting CakeCompany LTD add some nicotine to one of the group's recipes without letting their customers know what their modified recipe is.
  • franga2000 5y ago
    > But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. My take on this is that those two things are almost equivalent. There are very few cases where I wouldn't consider someone using my open source code for financial gain without contributing back to not be exploitation. If you're making something for personal use or even for some business cases, I see no valid reason you couldn't adhere to the GPL. If, however, you insist that what you make should be your own property and you just want to take what I made as your own and give nothing back to me or the project, then you should pay for dual-licensing or pay your own engineers to develop an alternative. Open source developers are volunteers - many of us would gladly volunteer at a homelrss shelter, give blood, etc., but I can't imagine you'd find many people willing to volunteer for a company. For reasons why that is, ask anyone who's been in an unpaid internship.
  • throwaway984393 5y ago
    Nobody knew back in the day that this strange idea called "open source licensed software" would become a big deal. And when it did become a big deal, there still wasn't enough practical examples to inform us which license to choose. At the time, corporations were not "taking advantage" of open source licenses, and we had no idea they would later on. So corporations weren't really a factor for us. It was more about source code freedom / user freedom.
  • dspillett 5y ago
    > But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. I'd say that for a lot of people using the GPL that is exactly correct, but they distinguish between the people using the code and the commercial interest that they work for much more than your wording suggests. That good person will eventually move on, potentially leaving just the commercial interest. Of course there are more extreme views (that good people and commercial interests do not mix) so it isn't that simple for all. And there is the obvious twist of the point that by avoiding the use code covered by GPL, someone is tacitly stating that the potential for commercial exploitation is an option that they (directly or via following their employers' wishes) expressly want to keep available. This is why some projects dual license, but that can have its own problems for projects with many maintainers or forks - sharing back becomes a relicensing issue of it's own (it is less of an issue for a protect maintained by small team, or a team of one).
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • bruce343434 5y ago
    Yeah right, you like to make money of off my work that I made available for free? You can buy the commercial license.
    • epaga 5y ago
      Not at all. I don't feel entitled to anything. Here's where I think the misunderstanding is, and maybe I should have made this point in my original comment: I do think there can absolutely be cases where a dual license of GPL / commercial can make a ton of sense. I think those cases tend to be for projects like Linux, Blender, etc. But what I'm saying I personally think is a bummer is that for years, most open source projects - down to even small but useful libraries - were put under GPL simply because it was "the thing to do". Like Carmack says, in my mind that is a net negative, since these libraries then were not able to be used by projects which were under other licenses, due to their copy-left viral nature.
      • dendriti 5y ago
        We don't know how many projects would never have been written at all without GPL as a license option. Making it difficult to determine whether it's a net negative or not.
  • belorn 5y ago
    Licenses are about choices. I do not want 7 year old girls to be sued. I don't want people to go to jail for helping others to take part in culture and enjoy art. I want children (or everyone?) to have access to all of culture, knowledge and art regardless of their parents wealth. I want that researcher has access to research papers and software technology in order to enable the improvement of the human race, especially on the medical side. I want life-critical and life-saving technology to be transparent and verifiable. I want technology that can be repaired and not arbitrary prevented from being repaired. I want that people have the ability to remove malicious code from devices that they own. I do not want 20 years long government enforced monopolies on vague concepts. I do not want multiple lifetimes worth of government enforced monopolies on concrete art, culture and life-improving technologies. People who want to use code for good with commercial interests could sign an agreement that follow those above wishes, including additional corner cases or obvious bad behavior which I might have forgotten. Alternative I can use a license that get me as close as I can using preexisting understanding of those licenses.
    • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "People who want to use code for good with commercial interests could sign an agreement that follow those above wishes" WI absolitely support the idea of getting comoanies to contribute to OSS they use, but in most cases the projects are not prepared for this. There is no obvious standard way to pay that I could take to my boss
    • tpoacher 5y ago
      a.k.a. "For God's sake, think of the children!!!1!"
      • belorn 5y ago
        Many games are designed towards the younger part of the population. But I am not sold on the idea that only children have a right to culture, art and knowledge regardless of social economic status. There is plenty of good arguments in favor of giving everyone equal access regardless of the ability to pay. The issue tend to come to how society should then go around incentivize and enable those who produce such culture, art and knowledge. The struggle for economic justice and the equality of persons is not universally admired, so we have to start somewhere. Not suing children for accessing culture, art and knowledge is such start, and it would be great if the law recognized that.
  • cblconfederate 5y ago
    there is value to keeping something public in itself, like with parks and roads. If anything i d say that todays feudal state of tech proves that gpl was right it s hard to deny that the most-used OSS software, is GPL
    • trasz 5y ago
      Not necessarily. Linux kernel is GPL, sure, but if you look at eg language runtimes, or various servers, GPL is no longer obviously dominant.
    • paavohtl 5y ago
      It's easy to deny, as long as we include libraries in the definition of "software". ZLib is bundled with macOS, iOS, basically every Linux distribution, every game console and even every Windows 10 installation [1] [2]. Same for extremely common libraries like libpng, Curl, SQLite, Boost and OpenSSL. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib [2] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/products/notices/win https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/products/notices/win
  • mannerheim 5y ago
    > So many projects became useless for any commercial projects whatsoever. Which is why Linux is used in zero commercial projects.
    • cgh 5y ago
      Linux has GPL linking exceptions so the full terms of the license do not apply.
  • Dylan16807 5y ago
    There are lots of ways to combine GPL and proprietary code without having to release the proprietary source. And how do you feel about LGPL? Many companies seem to be terrified of it for no reason.
  • oliwarner 5y ago
    Id engines —as well as many other projects— were dual licensed, GPL or Proprietary. If you wanted to make a game with one, it either had to be GPL too, or you paid for a traditional licence. This got Id paid and let modders and the open source gaming community go wild. What's the downside? Carmack's argument about perception, but his view is really about having had more people use his software. I think he's wrong. Brave thing for any SWE to claim but Id wouldn't have open sourced a second engine if the first was freely taken by a dozen companies and sold in competition with for game sales, giving no source improvements back. And no, GPL advocates say it protects users of downstream projects. Software freedom is a huge topic, but the user is the focus. The arrangement Id had protected them too. Carmack's take is just odd.
    • jbluepolarbear 5y ago
      I know a lot of game developers that have never messed with Id tech because of the license, so what Carmack is saying makes sense. Yes I’ve read the Id tech code that’s been released but I’ve never thought for one second to use the code because of the license.
      • oliwarner 5y ago
        What you're both saying is there is licensing ignorance. People read "open source" ignore the small print, get in trouble. GPL isn't special there, EULAs and enterprise software licenses are horrible, but I can understand the broader point that GPL makes you think, and thinking hurts. The point I maintain is, in Id's position at the time, a MIT/BSD license would have just cost them their engine business. Their code would have been everywhere, but they'd lose the business case for future open sourcing. The net amount of usage would be way down on what we have today.
        • jbluepolarbear 5y ago
          I’ve been in software a long time and I’ve had to navigate the gpl and it derivatives the entire time. I primarily work in games and I’ve run into a lot of issues with gpl along my career. For most of my career lawyers dictate what is and isn’t acceptable for software licenses and gpl is always the biggest issue. Which gpl license? Is there a single license holder? I feel the gpl was enacted with good intentions, but I feel the wrong people enacted it. Too radical in many ways, too restrictive, and so aggressively enforced that it at least makes using gpl libraries a hard decision. I think that open source projects, that aren’t gpl, have proved that you can build software and still money from it. Godot, React, Chromium, and Node to name a few. Active development is worth much more than the actual code and encouraging your users to contribute back without the cost of giving away their product has allowed these and similar projects to grow. I think ID would have had a similar experience had they gone with a different license.
  • yosamino 5y ago
    >GPL advocates say it's so that your code isn't exploited by corporations. I am not sure which GPL advocates you have spoken to, but I like the GPL, because it puts me center as a user. I can use and copy a programm as I see fit. And if I come to a point where I think something has gone wrong with it or something is missing, then I can modify it myself, or pay someone to help me do that, and I can distribute these modifications. This ensures my freedom as a user. Maybe the software got abandoned, maybe someone added telemetry, maybe xyz, it's helpful in many cases. More restrictive licenses, let's say the MIT one, do not prevent me from making making my contributions closed source. This ensures the freedom of the developer to prevent users gaining access to the code. Thus it restricts the rights of the user, that they would have under the GPL. If a commercial project feels it's within their right to prevent me from accessing the code that is running on my machine, that is their decision, but that is at odds with the freedoms that are granted by the GPL. Given all that, I would like to disagree with your conclusion > But I'd say that choosing GPL means it's more important to you that your code "is not exploited by corporations" than that it can be used for good by people with commercial interests. Chosing the GPL means it's more important to me that my users, not my code, is not exploited "by corporations". The GPL then does not prevent "good people with commercial interests" from using my code - but given that "good" is a relative term: from my point of view preventing someone from having meaningfull access to the code that is running on their machine is not good - it is bad.
    • yeahforsureman 5y ago
      What if that "bad" is insignificant compared to the good produced by that code as part of proprietary software? That scenario is impossible with GPL. Effectively, you're just restricting the business models of your users. It has worked for some projects (Linux above all) but if you're talking about a small project that likely stays small, I don't know if it usually makes much sense. Also, your convoluted explanation of why permissive licenses should be called "restrictive" is hilarious.
      • yosamino 5y ago
        I agree with your point on the usage of the word "bad", this is what the term "relative" that I used implied, as well as the explaination of which specific aspect I think it applies to. I am not sure why you are trying to make fun of me: Permissive licenses ensure that the first generation of users/developers benefit from the code in question being free, and then allow restrictions. Licenses along the lines of the GPL make sure software stays free even after generations of copies. The restriction in the GPL that sets it apart from, let's say, the BSD license, is that it doesn't allow further restrictions. So the tree of descendants of an originally "permissively" licensed code contains potentially more restrictions, that the tree of descendants of originally GPL licensed code. Quite possible that this makes the GPL the less successfull of the bunch. That shares a similarity to the paradox of tolerance: To ensure a society stays tolerant, it has to be intolerant against it's intolerant subgroups. You can argue that a society should be so free that is does not do this, but that just diminishes tolerance in the long run, so of the two paradigms, paradoxically, the more tolerant society is the one with a specific intolerant rule against intolerant minorities. This is, as you rightly noted, not how modern business models function.
  • hankman86 5y ago
    I think one of the reasons for why the GPL as once more popular than other licenses has to do with the fact that it was created for the GNU operating system, basically a collection of simple command line utilities. No one would think of using these in other ways than to run them on the command line (or in a batch file), which is explicitly excluded from the “derivative work” concept of the GPL. Things got complicated once people put libraries under the GPL, which is when all the legal uncertainties cropped up about what constitutes derivative work.
  • marcodiego 5y ago
    It is not only a matter of "that your code isn't exploited by corporations". It also a guarantee that any improvement to that code will be available to everyone.
  • jrochkind1 5y ago
    The "it's more important that your code is not exploited by corporations" crowd doesn't actually find GPL suitable anymore either, it still allows too much exploitation. This position increasingly wants technically not-open-source licenses that reserve the right to profit from the code for... actually, a certain corporation, the one of the "original developers". It's not really about "by corporations", but "big corporations" vs "plucky entrepeneurs who deserve to get rich from their innovation". Whereas before, for open source enthusiasts, it was about "those who get rich from code" (whether big corporations or 'plucky entrepeneurs') vs some kind of 'commons' or 'public good'. (The new ideological position believes they are still open source enthusiasts somehow, but that their non-open-rights-reserved licenses are somehow 'more truly' open source than... actual open source licenses including the GPL. The term 'open source' still has too much credit for them to say they are opposed to it, even when they are). There is definitely an ideological shift going on. I am curious if anyone has written/researched more about it.
    • x4e 5y ago
      To give an example of this: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/small-business/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/small-business/1.0.0/ and https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/
  • mrtweetyhack 5y ago
    you're bummed out because you can't steal people's code to make money
  • aabccd 5y ago
    >Seeing the downvotes, I'd be genuinely interested in counter-arguments or thoughts on this They are probably downvoting because time and time again people explain that the _purpose_ of GPL isn't to stop commercial use (commercial use is fine), it's to stop developers from depriving users of the same rights to the source code that you, the developer had. I'm not even a GPL guy, just a guy that can take 10 minutes to read a license and an FAQ. I've also used GPL in commercial software, it's very simple to comply with the license.
  • sdxsd 5y ago
    I understand, I personally would not like a company, especially one that does not respects users privacy using my code in any way.
  • bcrl 5y ago
    There is an example of 2 projects that started around the same time, one of which used the GPL and one of which used the BSD license. Almost 30 years after the projects started, the one one using the GPL is vibrate and healthy, while the other project using the BSD license has trouble getting companies to contribute their changes back and barely has enough developers participating in the community to survive. This is the tale of Linux vs FreeBSD. Companies like Juniper that made heavy use of FreeBSD as the basis for JunOS have an atrocious history of failing to contribute their changes back to the community, and Juniper isn't the only one engaging in this behaviour. Sure there are other reasons that Linux took off and FreeBSD didn't, but license is a major factor in how their respective communities behave. Yes, there are times when copying BSD licensed code is easier if you don't want to publish your source, but it isn't too difficult to adapt business processes to this constraint for the vast majority of applications. Look at what happened in the wireless router market. Early in the 2000s many products made use of the various vendors' Linux based SDKs and weren't compliant at publishing their source. Today OpenWRT is vibrant and most vendors offer GPL archive downloads on their websites. Personally, I don't think this would have happened if Linux wasn't GPLed and there wasn't the pressure the GPL afforded on vendors to open up their code. I understand and respect John Carmack's position, and the GPL isn't for everyone, but people need to understand that license can result in significant differences in the viability of a community built around a software project on the longer term scales of 10-20 years.
    • cout 5y ago
      Linux isn't purely GPL; it's GPL with an exception carved out for system calls. I think that's an important distribution, because the userspace equivalent would be GPL with an exception carved out for dynamic linking (i.e. the LGPL).
    • emaste 5y ago
      This is quite far off the mark. Many companies using FreeBSD, including Juniper, NetApp, Netflix, Netgate (pfSense), iXsystems (TrueNAS), Dell (Isilon) contribute significant code to FreeBSD. It's very expensive to maintain long-lived changes from upstream, so there's a large incentive not to do so. Code that's "not contributed back" is largely code that isn't suitable for upstream anyhow - because it is incomplete, limited in scope, etc. Looking at "Sponsored by" tags on the last 6 months of commits to FreeBSD I see the following: The FreeBSD Foundation Netflix Rubicon Communications, LLC ("Netgate") Chelsio Communications NetApp, Inc. Mellanox Technologies // NVIDIA Networking Innovate UK Klara, Inc. Diablotin Systems Dell EMC Isilon iXsystems, Inc. Citrix Systems R&D Axcient Netflix, Inc. DARPA Alstom Group Eldorado Research Institute (eldorado.org.br) Ampere Computing Marvell Stormshield Amazon, Inc. (and a long list of entries with one or two commits each) There's a backlog of work that contributors would like to get into FreeBSD; a limiting factor is availability of mentor and reviewer time to guide contributors through the process and iterating on bringing the code into a committable state.
  • anoncake 5y ago
    If I make my code non-GPL specifically so other people can use it for profit, I effectively donated to a for-profit company. Why the hell would I do that?
• neolog 5y ago
  It's never for you, it's for everyone.
  • quietbritishjim 5y ago
    He was obviously talking about benefits for everyone to begin with. If he was only interested in selfish benefits to himself he could just have not released the code at all!
• dman 5y ago
  This headline is a bit sensationalist. His tweet at the end says - "I'm still supportive of lots of GPL work, but I don't think the restrictions helped in this particular case." He also says - "but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns". It appears that the goal John was shooting for was to have as broad an impact by having the code being reused in as many situations as possible. On this metric, yes BSD would have been a superior choice.
  • irjustin 5y ago
    Counter point: I don't think it's sensational. I interpreted his words directly as he wishes he gone a different direction given what he knows now. At the time he thought GPL was the best move, and now how he doesn't. HNTitle at the time of my reply: "John Carmack wishes he'd used the BSD license instead of the GPL"
    • toast0 5y ago
      He also said in the thread that his partners wouldn't have gone for it, so he may have thought BSD was better back then too, but went with what he could do. Releasing the engine code at all was a big deal back then, and inspired some others to do so, but others sometimes had more restrictive than GPL licenses; GPL is certainly better than a license prohibiting commercial use.
      • bifrost 5y ago
        > GPL is certainly better than a license prohibiting commercial use. The GPL prohibits some commercial use. The BSD license does not.
        • eitland 5y ago
          > The GPL prohibits some commercial use. > The BSD license does not. Really a nitpick but is this actually true? I mean the GPL actually defends your right to do whatever you want with the software including selling or renting it out. What it restrict is what limitations you can put on those who use it, but (and here comes the nitpick): prohibiting others from using something in a certain way isn't what I'd call "commercial use" or "use". I guess a lawyer could argue that but in everyday speak, no. Not a native speaker though.
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  There is no empirical evidence in what he says
  • wsc981 5y ago
    > There is no empirical evidence in what he says Didn't Apple remove all GPL-based code from the whole iOS and macOS dev infrastructure at some point due to GPL licensing concerns? I also believe Apple sticked for a very long time to an older version of GCC in the past, due to licensing concerns of newer versions of GCC [0]. That was, until Apple replaced GCC with Clang. And I am not sure if GPL-based code can even be submitted to the AppStore [1][2]. As a dev I always avoided GPL-based code in my iOS apps with the exception of GPL2 licensed static libraries (which to my understanding are ok to distribute as part of an app without licensing concerns). These days I think most big companies avoid GPL3-based code like the plague, thus limiting the spread of GPL-based software. --- [0]: https://qr.ae/pG4YqQ https://qr.ae/pG4YqQ [1]: https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/59495/5640 https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/59495/5640 [2]: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
    • faho 5y ago
      Apple specifically avoids code licensed under GPL 3, which wasn't even released at the time Carmack's code was licensed. The concern there seems to be the anti-"tivoization" provisions, which could force Apple to allow people to replace GPLv3'd code.
      • varajelle 5y ago
        I believe the concern was more about the patent closes from the GPLv3
    • kelnos 5y ago
      > As a dev I always avoided GPL-based code in my iOS apps with the exception of GPL2 licensed static libraries (which to my understanding are ok to distribute as part of an app without licensing concerns). That... does not sound correct to me at all, unless they were actually LGPL2, and not GPL2.
• rStar 5y ago
  so, we all have the privilege to read the DOOM source code because the GPL exists and was compatible with the business needs of Id Soft, as well as JC’s vision, is how i’m reading this.
  • bifrost 5y ago
    You would've had the privilege of reading the source with BSD too, but the GPL prevents a variety of things from happening so its not as free as the BSD License. If you want to read into something - he was bullied into using the GPL and not the BSD license.
    • bawolff 5y ago
      Neither license gives you the right to see the source. GPL only gives you the right if the software is distributed to you, and im pretty sure BSD gives you no rights in that regard.
      • bifrost 5y ago
        Sure, but you're claiming the GPL enabled "reading the source" which is patently false.
        • drran 5y ago
          GPL protects the right to see the source of a binary distributed to you, so, in some cases, it enables reading of the code.
    • rStar 5y ago
      I would never have had the opportunity to read the DOOM source if JC had insisted on using BSD, because, as JC tweets, his business partners at Id soft would not have gone for it. ipso facto the GPL + Id + JC are responsible for this privilege being available to us all.
      • eeegnu 5y ago
• kaptain 5y ago
  I’ve looked at some of the Copilot threads but am unable to follow the issue. Can someone summarize what the issue is with Copilot and why a BSD license would have been significant for the code?
  • horstmeyer 5y ago
    My understanding is that when Copilot automatically inserts some GPL licensed code fragment into your project, your project automatically has to become GPL licensed, whether you want and realize or not.
    • simion314 5y ago
      >your project, your project automatically has to become GPL licensed, whether you want and realize or not. This is not exactly true, GPL is not magic that automatically re-licenses your code behind your back. What actually happens is your are in violation of the GPL , one way to solve the violation is that you re-license your code (so you have to do it, it is not happening behind your back automatically). I am not aware of any case where someone did not want to GPL the software and a judge forced him to do it. This kind of problems are also happening with proprietary license, some developer copy-pastes some properietary code and in the end you have to make ti right remove the code and make a deal with the party you damaged.
      • drran 5y ago
        NeXT (now Apple) has this experience: > The C compiler in use at the time was GCC, which was released under the GPL. To avoid the restrictions of this code, NeXT provided its front end as a library that end users would link against GCC, thereby avoiding the GPL (which only applies to distribution of the software, not how you use it). This little legal maneuver didn't work, however, so NeXT was forced to release the code.
        • simion314 5y ago
          Can you provide a link on the "forced" part ? Maybe they realized that is fucking OK to respect the license , they would not like it if someone fucks with their proprietary code either.
• barcoder 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses BSD licenses are a family of permissive free software licenses, imposing minimal restrictions on the use and distribution of covered software. This is in contrast to copyleft licenses, which have share-alike requirements. The original BSD license was used for its namesake, the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD), a Unix-like operating system. The original version has since been revised, and its descendants are referred to as modified BSD licenses. - Discussion on bsd vs gpl: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187235
• layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
  BSD is about being kind to everyone, even unkind people. GPL is about being kind to everyone, as long as they are as kind as you. When sharing something valuable under a GPL license, you’re incentivizing others to be kind like you. Obviously, if you’re a millionaire like Carmack, you don’t need others’ kindness to get by, so from his point of view a BSD license is better, as his goal is simply to disseminate his code as widely as possible.
  • jokoon 5y ago
    I'm not supporting capitalism (with all its problems), copyright or intellectual property, but in the real world, kindness doesn't really exist. Setting up a market for kindness is not going to work very well.
    • dannyw 5y ago
      What about all the nonprofits that employ ~1 in 10 Americans?
• pjmlp 5y ago
  This part of Carmacks tweets really touches home, > I touched on that recently with the comment about open source culture and game dev; One thing I learned the hard way is how game dev is all about IP, creating business oppportunities, publishing deals, getting the game into the hands of as many kids as possible (while being able to keep paying for the mortgage), whatever APIs get used is a very tiny detail of the whole games production circus.
  • belorn 5y ago
    I have made a similar observation in the past. Game development is such a extremely high competitive area that any legal method to save time and use someone else code will be used unless it breaks the core business model. Delaying a release of a game by a few months because developers are re-implementing a xlm parser is not an option. If I remember right, Starcraft 2 by Blizzard uses LGPLv3 code, and the software credit list is very long. I can imagine the cost and delays if they had arbitrary chosen to restrict themselves to specific licenses. Focus on what is the core part of a company. For most game companies that seems to be about developing multiple games at the same time, finding one that is good enough to develop to a finished product, while surviving on the last released game.
    • prox 5y ago
      What are the implications if you use an engine like Unity or Unreal, since you build upon an existing framework?
      • belorn 5y ago
        For unreal, I think the first $1 million USD of lifetime gross revenue of the game is royalty-exempt, and then you pay. Then I think it is 5% of revenue. For unity it is free if revenue or funding is less than $100K in the last 12 months. That is just the basic implication from a cost perspective. I am not a game developer but there is likely a bunch of other considerations, both legal and technical.
        • deleted 5y ago
• foxes 5y ago
  Why is a few snippets of code so valuable anyway? We don't GPL scientific research, you expect people to cite you, and then build off your work, the licensing in a sense is far more permissive. You don't GPL maths text books and then require proofs to be licensed back. Other knowledge doesn't seem to propagate in society like this. The human element of the programmer who can understand, adapt and develop some program is more valuable. The valuable thing is their time and overall knowledge, not the end piece of content necessarily. I think you do want to make sure people who have good ideas get recognised, (but this is like GitHub, employment record etc) but truly it's more beneficial to society if those good ideas propagate freely and get reused. I think the copilot thing really brings this to light. I believe BSD is probably the best option. Valuing the programmer more, caring more about who develops your app is more important than merely the code at the end of the day. Eg is this a reputable team I want to support? The copyright/license system seems out dated in light of new information. I think the citation model works better. If its truly well established knowledge then yes maybe a formal reference exists somewhere, but they sort of fade into the background.
  • wildmanx 5y ago
    I think the key property of the GPL is its virality. It's part of the vision that if I can use some software, I can also change it, to adapt it to my needs, to learn from it, to build something on top of it. I can disassemble my bike, re-assemble it, change it, build on top of it. I want to do that with my browser, my OS kernel and my image viewer too. That this is connected to how "valuable" code is, is in a sense a happy coincidence. The conditions are attached and entangled because this forces people to listen and pay attention. A more "permissive" license (like BSD) is weakening that point. It allows you to reuse code but does not require the re-user to allow the above mentioned openness. So is kind of missing the point, from that perspective.
    • foxes 5y ago
      Well I agree in that regard, but I think in the ideal world everything would just be open, and you would want to incentivise openness so it ends up as the natural state. In a sense by decoupling these issues. Eg Microsoft Windows OS could just be open source. There is some value to having windows itself, but the more valuable thing is the horde of programmers, and all the other resources behind it.
• throwaway984393 5y ago
  Twitter makes for a bad blogging \ platform
  • saurik 5y ago
    I think it works best when people use it like a slide deck--the kind you create and then "send" to someone, as opposed to the kind that is used as a visual aid for a talk or lecture--and carefully organize their tweets so that they have one semi-isolatable (but hopefully rather complete) thought/insight per message. I agree that John Carmack, as evidenced by these tweets, does not seem to know (or care about) how to do that :(... but I've totally seen people do it well; and then, as a "blogging platform", it has the superpower of letting people branch graphs out of your deck, highlighting and commenting on slides while still retaining their context as part of a global discussion.
    • coldacid 5y ago
      The (slow) death of blogs and .plan files is probably the greatest net negative Twitter has had on the internet.
  • npteljes 5y ago
    Turns out that the people factor is greater than the technological factor.
    • throwaway984393 5y ago
      QA and UX engineers know all about that... :'(
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• CyberRabbi 5y ago
  Just a note that he is speaking from the perspective of someone who already profited immensely from the source code in question before the source was released. Most developers of FOSS never see a single dime and actually do it at net negative monetary benefit not to mention personal cost. All of that purely for the benefit of the collective.
  • moonchild 5y ago
    The profit does not come from the source code, but from the assets. There are games which are fully opensource, but where you have to pay for the assets (and where the source code was released at the same time as the rest of the game). This was not the case for doom, but the demo for doom was free and came out at the same time; the engine was always freely available.
    • Jyaif 5y ago
      > The profit does not come from the source code, but from the assets. Which is why Unity and the Unreal Engine are free. Oh wait...
      • filleduchaos 5y ago
        They're functionally free to the vast majority of game developers.
      • moonchild 5y ago
        Yes, unity and unreal engine are game engines which are sold to game developers. Doom is a game which was sold to end users, and whose engine was free. Clearly those are different...
    • CyberRabbi 5y ago
      > The profit does not come from the source code, but from the assets. The source code enables the profitability of the assets. In the end the distinction is irrelevant to this matter. This is like saying Facebook doesn’t make money from its platform but from its deals with advertisers.
• globular-toast 5y ago
  I dislike people calling the GPL "viral". The thing that is viral is copyright. Copyright is baked into law and nobody can escape it. If you relinquish your own copyright then as soon as someone modifies the work copyright comes back. Copyleft is the only antidote we have for copyright. All Stallman et al really want is to "switch off" copyright. That would be obvious if people would listen to his talks. But instead we get a bunch of people thinking the GPL is "more restrictive" but what they really mean is "I want copyright for myself but not for you". Maybe copyleft was a mistake and we should really just fight copyright directly.
  • jeroenhd 5y ago
    I consider the viral thing of copyright a good thing, similar to a meme going viral. While technically the law, people were pretty upset when a "meme tax" was being discussed because the copyright owners of the sources of many memes were seeking compensation. The idea of going viral as making it something everyone can partake in and something nobody can tell you not to do as long as you don't try to restrict others is pretty positive. Companies and copyright firms will have us believe the "viral" just refers to the way COVID is viral, but it's become more than that. Any company advocating against or complaining about GPL isn't worth paying attention to, in my opinion. In this case, the one of an individual developer, that's not the case though. Not everyone who chooses GPL wants to kill copyright, especially people in the game dev world whose entire business is that of copyright. For those people, GPL is the wrong license to release their source code by for many reasons, though it's also the right license to release their source code by for many others. I've always seen copyleft as a fight against copyright, an abuse of the system meant to accumulate private wealth and restrictions, by forcing people to give up their private gains or make them reinvent the wheel if they wish to keep their IP to themselves. Any patent owner will say IP is necessary for the market to stay competitive, anyone who's ever had to buy patents (media codecs, mobile communication, etc) or who's been sued by patent trolls will likely say that patents stifle innovation instead. It's all about what you gain personally. I like the idea of copyright for individuals, but corporate copyright as a thing that can be sold, bought, or pooled, has been so terribly restrictive to most of the world that I'm in favour of a massive reform.
• malka 5y ago
  > "but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns". Well, that's the point. GPL is working as intented.
  • rvnx 5y ago
    It doesn't solve the issue. GPL people would have taken the BSD code, do a minor change, and force everyone to redistribute the source-code under GPL. Really terrible license.
    • markus92 5y ago
      They'd only own the copyright on the minor change so can't force everyone to use GPL on all of the code.
    • ivanbakel 5y ago
      What is the exact scenario you're against? If GPL changes are added to a BSD codebase, it's still possible to use the BSD part of the code under the terms of that license. The GPL doesn't "infect" the rest of the work, either in the present or historically. You aren't "forced" to re-distribute the source code unless you want to use the GPL changes - which is just how copyright works in the first place.
    • fazgl 5y ago
      This occurs very rarely and provokes a loud counter reaction from the BSD people.
      • donkeybeer 5y ago
        It seems such bsd people then don't believe in the power granted by the bsd license to others using it as they wish to. Ironically. May I suggest GPL for their next project?
        • nmz 5y ago
          Whining is not illegal, if you can whine about a license change, you should.
• jokoon 5y ago
  I'm curious to listen about stories where released source code under BSD became a problem because some company re-appropriated it. So far I don't think I have heard about such story, can someone chime in?
  • megous 5y ago
    For example ARM TF-A for RK3566. U-Boot and Linux code is available and the development is in the open thanks to GPL, TF-A is just a blob released by rockchip (TF-A is originally from ARM). My Quartz64 SBC sits unused because of non-free boot path and supervisor code.
• hankman86 5y ago
  Let’s face it: the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses. Projects using the GPL are increasingly held back and are losing favour among developers. Like LLVM is a very active and innovative platform, whereas GCC is essentially stuck in its original scope. Why? Because the world is more complicated than the FSF ideologues want it to be. Developers do not collectively or exclusively want to work for free and live a life of poverty. Not to mention that the GPL is simply too risky and expensive to use in any commercial context. There are countless lawyers consulting organisations on how to avoid the viral aspects of GPL-licensed code. And since case law is scarce, more often than not the advice will be: avoid the (A)GPL like the plague. The only meaningful and morally acceptable “copyleft” license is the LGPL, which asks you to give back without being the license cancer that is the (A)GPL.
  • stavros 5y ago
    > the GPL is becoming irrelevant and is displaced by permissive licenses Is it really? I've recently switched to AGPL because I specifically don't want you using my stuff if you aren't going to give back. If you want to make money off something, feel free to pay for the initial investment, instead of using my work for free. > Developers do not collectively or exclusively want to work for free and live a life of poverty. Which is why I use the AGPL. If you want to make money off my work, pay me. > Not to mention that the GPL is simply too risky and expensive to use in any commercial context. Good! At this point, I'd be happier if everyone who wanted to contribut to OSS played in one sandbox, and everyone who just wanted to use OSS for gain without giving anything back went somewhere else.
    • hankman86 5y ago
      You’re basically using the AGPL like a “freemium” upselling business model. I’ve got no issues with that, it’s your property after all. Just don’t tell the world that you sign up to the FSF nonsense about software freedom. And be prepared that this may not work out for you. The AGPL is particularly nasty and even infects across network boundaries (not tested in court though). No one with a sane state of mind will even come close to AGPL software - unless they’re a not for-profit entity.
• 0dayz 5y ago
  I think that the issue at hand is that there is no middle ground license that is made for the community and for businesses in mind and instead its either one extreme or the other. Also its really annoying people say gpl is some anti corporation license or a license for the community, since Stallman has been explicitly clear its about giving "freedom" to the end user
  • hankman86 5y ago
    Actually there is. The LGPL is sort of a middle ground. It still requires you to share changes that you may make to some library. But it won’t easily infect the rest of your stack, so it’s basically the GPL with the viral bits removed.
    • glandium 5y ago
      The LGPL does impose restrictions that can make things inconvenient. Even for (or, dare I say, especially for) free software under other licenses.
    • 0dayz 5y ago
      Sure, but that's for libs, not your all-in-one project. I've heard Mozilla license is the compromise but I've got no idea.
• PoignardAzur 5y ago
  I'm very frustrated by some of the answers here and on Twitter. Carmack says: > The GPL virality wound up being a net negative, and more value would have come from BSD. [...] The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest, but tons of opportunities to just copy-paste-modify were lost due to license concerns. One of the answers on Twitter: > Then what if it's being exploited by big techs and make your work proprietary? GPL preserves the four essential freedoms, BSD does not. Yes. Okay. Carmack is aware of that. When he says "The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest", he specifically addressing those concerns, and saying that he basically saw no benefit from "not being exploited by big techs". Like, I find it intensely frustrating that, when an industry veteran says "I've heard the pros and cons of each approach and I found that in my real-life experience GPL was a net negative", people answer with a 101 on the philosophy of GPL. Is there a word for that? Dismissing empirical evidence by clinging to philosophical assertions?
  • eurg 5y ago
    Mansplaining? It happens to men too, not just by. A bit generic, though.
    • alexeldeib 5y ago
      I'd use mansplaining. I do find it funny there isn't an older (?) phrase for the same.
      • pgcj_poster 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_e...
        • alexeldeib 5y ago
          TIL. Hadn't heard the phrase before.
  • fao_ 5y ago
    > Dismissing empirical evidence by clinging to philosophical assertions? Small nitpick -- Carmack's assertions are anecdotal, not empirical.
• mikevm 5y ago
  What is the point in releasing your code as GPL anyway? If you've solved some interesting problem, then people can read your code to figure it out and then reimplement it, and no one will ever find out.
  • pavlov 5y ago
    If the code base is large and popular enough, like the Linux kernel or Emacs or FFMPEG, then such “dirty-room reverse engineering” doesn’t really help you much — your product still wouldn’t be compatible without conspicuous amounts of GPL code.
  • x4e 5y ago
    Many companies do not want to take that risk and will ensure they comply by the license. And anyway, what does it matter if someone steals your code? The point of the GPL is not to prevent people stealing your code but to hope that it at least provides some value to others through good faith forks respecting their freedoms.
• jf___ 5y ago
  "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" Joan Robinson Sums up GPL vs BSD succinctly
• qalmakka 5y ago
  I think that the MPLv2 covers the best of both worlds. It is a lightweight copyleft that requires you to give back the modifications you do to the original codebase, but it doesn't prevent you from static linking or mixing code with other licenses.
• enriquto 5y ago
  > The best aspects of GPL work didn't manifest That's strongly from the point of view of people who are mainly developers. But the main beneficiaries of the GPL are not developers but users: users of GPL software have the right to view and modify the code that runs on their computers. On the contrary, users of BSD-licensed software may have had this right stripped by middlemen between the author of the software and them. The GPL may annoy some developers but it always makes the users happier, and I think that's beautiful.
  • tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    A user who is not also a developer has no ability to meaningfully view and modify the code, and thus doesn't care.
    • enriquto 5y ago
      And what is your point? It's a freedom that they still have. They can always hire some developer to help them.
      • tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
        That it is reasonable to prioritize freedoms that are actually exercised to freedoms that are nice in theory but never used.
        • Crespyl 5y ago
          I also own a car for which I have almost none of the skills to meaningfully maintain and repair, but frequently exercise my right to contract a third party to do that work for me. The same is true for software, and I benefit even if I'm not the one paying for the work myself. The modern internet would look very different if KHTML hadn't been a GPL/LGPL project and Apple had been allowed to hold their changes in WebKit as a proprietary secret, and the same for Chrome/Blink. Companies can be users too, and the virality ensures that every user sees the benefits.
  • 5y ago
• marcodiego 5y ago
  I can play Doom on a modern, underpowered machine for today standards, with many improvements to graphics, sound and gameplay thanks to the need that all these improvements had to be contributed back. I can even pay for original assets of the game. It is not easy to conclude that that would be the case if Doom's source code was not released under the GPL. Actually, GPL has been working exactly as intended and exactly as I expected it to work.
  • johnklos 5y ago
    Perhaps you weren't paying attention when you read what Carmack wrote. Or perhaps you didn't even read it, because you're suggesting something that has absolutely nothing to do with the tweet. Carmack said he wishes the source had been released under the BSD license instead of the GPL. You're saying that it's not easy to conclude that new versions of Doom would exist if the sources had never been released at all. If you're trying to troll and suggest that it's not easy to conclude variants and updates would exist if the sources had been releases under the BSD license instead of the GPL, then we all know that's completely ridiculous, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting you either didn't read or understand the tweet. If you want to suggest there'd be less variants and versions? That'd be reasonable, but you're not saying that.
  • efficax 5y ago
    basically everything you're talking about was contributed by hobbyists passionate about Doom (I know, I was one of them). A BSD license wouldn't have stopped them, or encouraged any of them to take their modifications closed-source. Doom and then Quake had an active and enthusiastic community of modders who generally released everything back to the community, for the love it. I can't imagine the GPL vs BSD or MIT or Apache would have made any difference here.
• WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
  So what? BSD licenses are being violated just as blatantly. There's this clause about giving credit where credit is due, and copy-pasters don't really care.
• geenew 5y ago
  FWIW the ET Legacy[0] project remains active, and exists because the Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory code was GPL'd. I don't know if that's a good example of the 'best aspects of the GPL' that Carmack was talking about, but it's at least certain that all of the work contributed to ET Legacy is work that had the potential to be closed-sourced, but wasn't. It would be really interesting to see the lineage of open-source projects based on the GPL-licensed id games. The family tree at wikipedia[1] isn't complete (doesn't show ET Legacy, for example), and doesn't differentiate by license. [0] https://www.etlegacy.com/ https://www.etlegacy.com/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech#/media/File:Quake_-_family_tree_2.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech#/media/File:Quake_-_fa...
  • nmz 5y ago
    Well, the code could've still been GPLed after. The BSD license allows it.
    • athms 5y ago
      No it doesn't. Only the copyright owner can re-license. You can put modifications (that enjoy copyright protection) to BSD licensed code under the GPL or put BSD licensed code in a larger GPL code base, but you cannot re-license code covered by the BSD license.
      • nmz 5y ago
        I cannot tell if this is willfully pedantic or not. And well, since we are being pedantic, I guess I will allow myself to say, that you can't re-license per se, only newer versions can be re-licensed. a prior release will forever be that license. Now, with that said, modifications made to a GPL codebase, when published must be under the GPL. This is where the virality or copyleft come in. This in turn means that a GPL codebase cannot be anything but GPL. Putting BSD licensed code inside a GPL codebase is like pouring fresh water into the ocean. And even if you did do that, it should be a separate codebase, because if its a direct modification, then that should be GPL as well.
• throw7 5y ago
  Neither is better than the other. BSD is better for the developer. GPL is better for the user. It's not strange Carmack would tend toward BSD. He's pretty confident BSD would have definitively given Id source code more total "use"(copy/paste/modify). That's always the pro-argument for BSD because it allows the source to be "used" in a wider licensing scenarious, but his statement is still counterfactual history.
  • anoncake 5y ago
    The GPL gives developers an incentive to make their code free, which is better for the developer. It's therefore better for everyone.