5 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhich is very useful feature for me, the author of GPL'ed code.
- trasz 5y agoMaking your code useless to some of potential users is a useful feature?
- malka 5y agoI do not care if "potential user" is big corp that do not intend to contribute back. So yeah, it is a feature.
- trasz 5y agoStill, how preventing said corp from using this software help you, or anyone else?
- ric2b 5y agoLess time wasted on free support requests would be one way.
- malka 5y agoThe answer is in the question.
- trasz 5y agoNot really.
- mannerheim 5y agoIf you read between the lines, this is the very reason why Id released the source code as GPL instead of BSD: They didn't want their competitors to take their engine, make proprietary improvements, and deprive Id of revenue using their own work.
- thrower123 5y agoThey didn't release any of this code as open-source until they'd wrung every dime of engine licensing out of it and it had been completely obsoleted. It's free-as-in-couch software.
- squeaky-clean 5y agoThey never open-sourced any of their engines until after they had published a game with the next iteration of their engine.
- mannerheim 5y agoSure, but that just means they had multiple methods of ensuring they had created a suitable moat against competitors, the GPL being just one of them.
- drran 5y ago1) If I and said did not collaborate, then it will not help me, or anyone else. 2) If said corp refuse to collaborate with me and will use my code for free instead, then it will not help me, or anyone else, except said corp. Why I should care about (2)?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- matkoniecz 5y ago1) it helps their competitors 2) they may change their mind 3) they may pay for dual licensing (in case of work by a single author) In general interests of unfriendly corporations and mine are more likely to be opposite than shared.
- tpoacher 5y agoYes, especially if the code not being GPL means the bad actor can create a product which then makes your code useless, or worse, evil (via a monopoly, bundled telemetry, or otherwise)
- trasz 5y agoCan you show a scenario demonstrating how GPL prevents this from happening?
- ric2b 5y agoHere's a very recent example, the Audacity fork without all the new telemetry and related issues: https://github.com/tenacityteam/tenacity https://github.com/tenacityteam/tenacity
- drran 5y agoGPL prevents this from happening by requiring your competitor to open the code under the same license. For example, Oracle tried to outcompete RedHat by cloning the RedHat Linux into Oracle Unbreakable Linux.
- trasz 5y agoSo, without GPL, how would Oracle render RedHat useless with telemetry? And why didn't it prevent the Audacity drama?
- CorrectHorseBat 5y agoWithout GPL Oracle could make closed source improvements which RedHat could not use, giving Oracle an edge over RedHat. If RedHat then went under because of that we were stuck with a closed source Linux. The Audacity drama is solved by GPL, you can compile your own version without telemetry. Forks will pop up and the Audacity developers will backtrack and remove the offending parts of the code.
- 5y ago
- lmm 5y agoI'd rather an end user not get my code at all than they get a frozen binary that they can never fix bugs in.
- deallocator 5y agoSure you can, you just have to pay for the dual (commercial) license