4 ms·

I think the original point of GPL was to incentivise companies/developers to contribute changes back to GPL licensed project. What is clear is that, minus a few

I think the original point of GPL was to incentivise companies/developers to contribute changes back to GPL licensed project. What is clear is that, minus a few exceptions, most large open source engaged companies avoid GPL because of the risk of compliance [1]. And many authors that originally licensed their projects as GPL see this and regret their choice [2][3]. This is why there is a trend away from copyleft licenses [4]. [1] https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restrict... [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ [3] https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1412271091393994754?lang=en https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1412271091393994754... [4] https://opensource.com/article/17/2/decline-gpl https://opensource.com/article/17/2/decline-gpl

stebalien 5y ago
The original point of the GPL was to ensure that end-users retained their rights to the source code. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  There’s the philosophical intent of the FSF and then there’s what individual project authors intended by adopting GPL. I think OP correctly explains the perspective of some/many/or even most authors. Arguably, given the decline of GPL as the de facto license for OSS might indicate this viewpoint is at least an accurate perspective today and may have been the underlying truth all along. Certainly growing up I think I cared more about the concept of contributing improvements back than necessarily being able to have source to all derivative products and didn’t trust corporations to give back (I still don’t, but the situation doesn’t seem quite so serious for most projects).
- kazinator 5y ago
  That's just one point; but note that the LGPL also ensures that users retain those rights. Yet here is a difference between the GPL and LGPL. A GPLed piece cannot be mixed together pieces that have incompatible licenses. This is true even if the pieces are mixed together in a dynamic way that respects their boundaries, so that users can rebuild the GPL-ed piece from sources, make modifications, and slide the modified piece back into the combination. This is part of the point of the GPL, and specifically that point which is relaxed by the Lesser GPL, which is called "lesser" for some ideological reason.
- NightMKoder 5y ago
  This is a bit reductionist but a fun story for those that haven’t heard it. The GPL was created so rms could modify his printer driver: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt .
  - gentleman11 5y ago
    Inspired by that situation, at least
AceJohnny2 5y ago
No, that was the point of LGPL (Lesser or Library GPL) The point of GPL software is that it's to be used in a GPL system, where users retain modification rights to the system they've acquired, and to prevent proprietary systems from free-loading off of GPL work.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  Yep, it's funny to see people complaining about it when it is literally working as intended.
- lxgr 5y ago
  Even LGPL seems to have quite some FUD around the compatibility with distributing resulting software in app stores. This seems to be quite at odds with the (maybe mistaken?) idea of a license that allows embedding a component without "license contaminating" the entire project, but still requires publishing changes to the component itself. I wonder if there is a license that actually achieves that, without restricting the ability to publish to app stores?
  - detaro 5y ago
    That's not the only idea behind the LGPL (v3 especially), so it's not surprising it doesn't fulfill that without restricting other things. MPL might be more what you are looking for.
syshum 5y ago
Most "most large open source engaged companies " want to leach off open source and do not want to create end user products that are open source. They focus on open source development tools, and libraries. Not end-user software products. This is why they reject GPL because they want to be able to use the Tools and Libraries to package up a commercial software to sell to end users. They do not actually support the principles of Free Software, it is simply away for them to lower development costs and off shift capital expenses while getting some good PR about being "open source engaged"

stebalien 5y ago

The original point of the GPL was to ensure that end-users retained their rights to the source code. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms.

vlovich123 5y ago
There’s the philosophical intent of the FSF and then there’s what individual project authors intended by adopting GPL. I think OP correctly explains the perspective of some/many/or even most authors. Arguably, given the decline of GPL as the de facto license for OSS might indicate this viewpoint is at least an accurate perspective today and may have been the underlying truth all along. Certainly growing up I think I cared more about the concept of contributing improvements back than necessarily being able to have source to all derivative products and didn’t trust corporations to give back (I still don’t, but the situation doesn’t seem quite so serious for most projects).
kazinator 5y ago
That's just one point; but note that the LGPL also ensures that users retain those rights. Yet here is a difference between the GPL and LGPL. A GPLed piece cannot be mixed together pieces that have incompatible licenses. This is true even if the pieces are mixed together in a dynamic way that respects their boundaries, so that users can rebuild the GPL-ed piece from sources, make modifications, and slide the modified piece back into the combination. This is part of the point of the GPL, and specifically that point which is relaxed by the Lesser GPL, which is called "lesser" for some ideological reason.
NightMKoder 5y ago
This is a bit reductionist but a fun story for those that haven’t heard it. The GPL was created so rms could modify his printer driver: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt .
- gentleman11 5y ago
  Inspired by that situation, at least

AceJohnny2 5y ago

No, that was the point of LGPL (Lesser or Library GPL) The point of GPL software is that it's to be used in a GPL system, where users retain modification rights to the system they've acquired, and to prevent proprietary systems from free-loading off of GPL work.

moralestapia 5y ago
Yep, it's funny to see people complaining about it when it is literally working as intended.
lxgr 5y ago
Even LGPL seems to have quite some FUD around the compatibility with distributing resulting software in app stores. This seems to be quite at odds with the (maybe mistaken?) idea of a license that allows embedding a component without "license contaminating" the entire project, but still requires publishing changes to the component itself. I wonder if there is a license that actually achieves that, without restricting the ability to publish to app stores?
- detaro 5y ago
  That's not the only idea behind the LGPL (v3 especially), so it's not surprising it doesn't fulfill that without restricting other things. MPL might be more what you are looking for.

syshum 5y ago

Most "most large open source engaged companies " want to leach off open source and do not want to create end user products that are open source. They focus on open source development tools, and libraries. Not end-user software products. This is why they reject GPL because they want to be able to use the Tools and Libraries to package up a commercial software to sell to end users. They do not actually support the principles of Free Software, it is simply away for them to lower development costs and off shift capital expenses while getting some good PR about being "open source engaged"