6 ms·

"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 wo

by 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.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Companies certainly are to blame, but most OSS projects need support and I want to support them, but they make it impossible. Why do you want to negotiate? Large corps are burocracies. I can only get mine to donate to a registered charity, is your project one? To pay a bill is easier. There are few people that have authority to negotiate and their time is expensive. If they spend two hours to "negotiate", they are charging a pile of money the company could have paid you instead.
      - ric2b 5y ago
        > There are few people that have authority to negotiate and their time is expensive. If they spend two hours to "negotiate", they are charging a pile of money the company could have paid you instead. Right, but making my code MIT won't get me paid either. I will just spend more of my free time offering free support to some large enterprise that can't even figure out how to make a 1h negotiation happen without wasting boatloads of money.
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.

by epaga 5y ago

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.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Companies certainly are to blame, but most OSS projects need support and I want to support them, but they make it impossible. Why do you want to negotiate? Large corps are burocracies. I can only get mine to donate to a registered charity, is your project one? To pay a bill is easier. There are few people that have authority to negotiate and their time is expensive. If they spend two hours to "negotiate", they are charging a pile of money the company could have paid you instead.
    - ric2b 5y ago
      > There are few people that have authority to negotiate and their time is expensive. If they spend two hours to "negotiate", they are charging a pile of money the company could have paid you instead. Right, but making my code MIT won't get me paid either. I will just spend more of my free time offering free support to some large enterprise that can't even figure out how to make a 1h negotiation happen without wasting boatloads of money.

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.