4 ms·

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 a

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.
  - stavros 5y ago
    > Just don’t tell the world that you sign up to the FSF nonsense about software freedom. ...because I want everyone to be able to use my software for free, except if they're going to get paid for my work? Cool.
- jbluepolarbear 5y ago
  You sound like a great person to be around. Why would I pay you to use your foss when I can read it, understand it, improve it, and never even let you know about it because I decided to write my own version instead. Happens all the time because GPL is so restrictive. It’s easier and more cost effective to just rewrite the whole library than use a GPL one.
  - stavros 5y ago
    > You sound like a great person to be around. Thanks! > Why would I pay you to use your foss when I can [..] never even let you know about it because I decided to write my own version instead. You wouldn't, and that's exactly what I want. > It’s easier and more cost effective to just rewrite the whole library than use a GPL one. Which is exactly as intended.
    - jbluepolarbear 5y ago
      That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code? Because people still share a lot of code, they just choose a better license. I say better because the GPL is bad, it is the worst part of the Linux ecosystem and the worst part of embedded systems tool chains. I’ve contributed to a few open source project, but never a gpl one. Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source.
      - stavros 5y ago
        > That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code? Yes, the intention was very explicitly to discourage use and sharing to people who didn't intend to share alike. > Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source. I'm smug because I want you to share your changes to my code back? Good to know, I guess.
        jbluepolarbear 5y ago
        No you’re smug because you want to own my changes that I made to facilitate my needs. Even worse if you feel my changes aren’t acceptable I’ll have to fork your project and maintain a divergence anyway. So yes GPL is bad and is a poison.
- oliwarner 5y ago
  It's pretty disparaging that there are people on HN who feel confident enough to enter into discussions about software licencing —albeit on a throwaway account— but don't understand that software can have more than one license. I'd like to think I do understand all sides of this, but I will admit AGPL does give me pause for thought. It makes sense for standalone projects which don't have to be integrated. But at component and library level, when there's so much MIT/BSD/etc on npm/pypi/etc, I don't have to think about it. Does make me wonder why there isn't an ALGPL: "Use my network-expressed component as you like, but if you alter its source, you also need to redistribute the changes under the same license"…
  - stavros 5y ago
    > Does make me wonder why there isn't an ALGPL: "Use my network-expressed component as you like, but if you alter its source, you also need to redistribute the changes under the same license"… I'm fairly sure there's a GPL like that, either the GPLv3 or a version of the AGPL. It definitely doesn't let you alter the source for network servers, though, exactly like you say.
    - easton 5y ago
      I believe you refer to AGPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html "It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there." Notably, the Canvas learning management system is licensed this way, and all of their JavaScript is unminified so you can download it from the server.
      - stavros 5y ago
        Ah, yep! Thank you.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Yes it is, on IoT space, the POSIX clones competition is heating up, none of them use GPL.
fnord123 5y ago
>which asks you to give back without being the license cancer that is the (A)GPL. fwiw, cancer isn't contagious, so if you touch (A)GPL 'cancer' then you wouldn't get 'cancer'. If you wanted to disparage it, call it license herpes. Or license genital warts. Or license gonorrhoea (and you can flex that you know how to spell it). Personally, I hope you can be convinced, some day, to see licenses as a tool for building communities. Some tools are appropriate for some communities and other tools for others. Nothing for everybody, something for everyone.
- hankman86 5y ago
  That’s a fair argument to make, even though my counter point would be that first and foremost the (A)GPL excludes a community of developers who need to earn a living with their work. In fact, the FSF will call this “morally tainted”. That being said, the free software purists aren’t a particularly tolerant community. And again, I actually like and endorse copyleft in the form of the LGPL. So basically a license that can co-exist with others and doesn’t force it’s ideology on other people and their work.
  - fnord123 5y ago
    GPL does not exclude a community of developers who need to earn a living to work. Linux, GCC and MySQL do not exclude people who are trying to earn a living from their sweat and toil. The GPL even says they can't impose any reason why people want to use the code whether it's in missile guidance systems, teledildonics, or ad networks. >That being said, the free software purists aren’t a particularly tolerant community. Sure the zealots of $BELIEF believe in $BELIEF and want others to do so as well. It's not a surprise.
Y_Y 5y ago
"GPL is irrelevant, Netcraft confirms it."

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.
- stavros 5y ago
  > Just don’t tell the world that you sign up to the FSF nonsense about software freedom. ...because I want everyone to be able to use my software for free, except if they're going to get paid for my work? Cool.
jbluepolarbear 5y ago
You sound like a great person to be around. Why would I pay you to use your foss when I can read it, understand it, improve it, and never even let you know about it because I decided to write my own version instead. Happens all the time because GPL is so restrictive. It’s easier and more cost effective to just rewrite the whole library than use a GPL one.
- stavros 5y ago
  > You sound like a great person to be around. Thanks! > Why would I pay you to use your foss when I can [..] never even let you know about it because I decided to write my own version instead. You wouldn't, and that's exactly what I want. > It’s easier and more cost effective to just rewrite the whole library than use a GPL one. Which is exactly as intended.
  - jbluepolarbear 5y ago
    That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code? Because people still share a lot of code, they just choose a better license. I say better because the GPL is bad, it is the worst part of the Linux ecosystem and the worst part of embedded systems tool chains. I’ve contributed to a few open source project, but never a gpl one. Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source.
    - stavros 5y ago
      > That was the intention on the GPL? To discourage use and sharing code? Yes, the intention was very explicitly to discourage use and sharing to people who didn't intend to share alike. > Smug programmers like you are the worst part of open source. I'm smug because I want you to share your changes to my code back? Good to know, I guess.
      - jbluepolarbear 5y ago
        No you’re smug because you want to own my changes that I made to facilitate my needs. Even worse if you feel my changes aren’t acceptable I’ll have to fork your project and maintain a divergence anyway. So yes GPL is bad and is a poison.
oliwarner 5y ago
It's pretty disparaging that there are people on HN who feel confident enough to enter into discussions about software licencing —albeit on a throwaway account— but don't understand that software can have more than one license. I'd like to think I do understand all sides of this, but I will admit AGPL does give me pause for thought. It makes sense for standalone projects which don't have to be integrated. But at component and library level, when there's so much MIT/BSD/etc on npm/pypi/etc, I don't have to think about it. Does make me wonder why there isn't an ALGPL: "Use my network-expressed component as you like, but if you alter its source, you also need to redistribute the changes under the same license"…
- stavros 5y ago
  > Does make me wonder why there isn't an ALGPL: "Use my network-expressed component as you like, but if you alter its source, you also need to redistribute the changes under the same license"… I'm fairly sure there's a GPL like that, either the GPLv3 or a version of the AGPL. It definitely doesn't let you alter the source for network servers, though, exactly like you say.
  - easton 5y ago
    I believe you refer to AGPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html "It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there." Notably, the Canvas learning management system is licensed this way, and all of their JavaScript is unminified so you can download it from the server.
    - stavros 5y ago
      Ah, yep! Thank you.
pjmlp 5y ago
Yes it is, on IoT space, the POSIX clones competition is heating up, none of them use GPL.

fnord123 5y ago

>which asks you to give back without being the license cancer that is the (A)GPL. fwiw, cancer isn't contagious, so if you touch (A)GPL 'cancer' then you wouldn't get 'cancer'. If you wanted to disparage it, call it license herpes. Or license genital warts. Or license gonorrhoea (and you can flex that you know how to spell it). Personally, I hope you can be convinced, some day, to see licenses as a tool for building communities. Some tools are appropriate for some communities and other tools for others. Nothing for everybody, something for everyone.

hankman86 5y ago
That’s a fair argument to make, even though my counter point would be that first and foremost the (A)GPL excludes a community of developers who need to earn a living with their work. In fact, the FSF will call this “morally tainted”. That being said, the free software purists aren’t a particularly tolerant community. And again, I actually like and endorse copyleft in the form of the LGPL. So basically a license that can co-exist with others and doesn’t force it’s ideology on other people and their work.
- fnord123 5y ago
  GPL does not exclude a community of developers who need to earn a living to work. Linux, GCC and MySQL do not exclude people who are trying to earn a living from their sweat and toil. The GPL even says they can't impose any reason why people want to use the code whether it's in missile guidance systems, teledildonics, or ad networks. >That being said, the free software purists aren’t a particularly tolerant community. Sure the zealots of $BELIEF believe in $BELIEF and want others to do so as well. It's not a surprise.

Y_Y 5y ago

"GPL is irrelevant, Netcraft confirms it."