3 ms·

> I see GPL as a sign of quality Personal opinion is that BSD > GPL. Free as in properly free. I always donate to BSD license folks. When corporations use BSD

> I see GPL as a sign of quality Personal opinion is that BSD > GPL. Free as in properly free. I always donate to BSD license folks. When corporations use BSD software, they usually get engaged in the BSD community - under the stilts of management, suited lawyers and spreadsheet bean counters, it's just us programmer folk... you know. We like tinkering things and BSD software tends to have a different philosophy. Very welcoming to people who want to propel the world forward. Truly liberating, try BSD software.

rapnie 5y ago
This is a matter of hot debate, and I don't want to trigger such discussion. AFAIU it is a bit of perspective of where the freedom is. With BSD there's more 'freedom' to incorporate with proprietary code, which eases commercialization. Companies like it better because of that and are likelier contributors. With GPL, while you can still monetize your code, protects the freedom of the Commons better by preventing the proprietary commercialization of open source code. And that is a reason why many businesses shun it. Personally I am in favor of the 4 freedoms of open-source and like to use (A)GPL.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Yeah, agree it is hotly debated and not worth discussing further. I've recently been bitten by GPL and it's fresh on my mind how insidious it can be. That said, I work in commercial environment where BSD-licensed software is highly regarded.
  - tarsinge 5y ago
    Saying that corporations prefer something they can profit from without giving back vs something they can not is circular reasoning to me. Conversely if you look on the other side you'll see developers bitten by permissive software licences (MongoDB, Elasticsearch, ...).
    - snovv_crash 5y ago
      "without giving back" is a bit of an exaggeration. You could have a giant 20M line proprietary codebase, and if you incorporate a 20-line function from a GPL source, GPL says you need to relicense the whole thing. I prefer the MPLv2, it lets commercial users actually use the code, but they still have to contribute back any changes they make.
      - yeahforsureman 5y ago
        Or lacking adequate case law, that's what the FSF et al. would want you to believe, anyhow. Although a bit vaguely drafted in this respect, the copyleft effect of GPL depends on the concept of a derivative work under copyright law. It would be a bit far-fetched to claim that in your example, the combination of the function and the codebase is a derivative of the function you incorporated. Anyway, because the fact that people think GPL is that extensive is enough to create unnecessary problems, I too prefer MPL, where the copyleft scope is defined very clearly for its use case.
        reshlo 5y ago
        I don’t think it matters whether the GPL can successfully be enforced against the example you describe. The license’s author intended that it could be, and that is what matters. A philosophical disagreement with the license’s intent shouldn’t be overlooked just because the license might not actually be enforceable.
      - rini17 5y ago
        So you would be actually fine with GPL if excerpts up to 1000 lines were not covered by copyleft?
        snovv_crash 5y ago
        No, the GPL is for what it's for, large codebases like Linux where you want to make sure it doesn't fragment too badly. Most code isn't this, though.
      - 5y ago
Seirdy 5y ago
With few exceptions, I generally view the purpose of permissive licenses as "encouraging derivative software with EULAs and other restrictions", and the purpose of copyleft licenses as only allowing derivatives that don't restrict such freedoms. Copyleft software therefore guarantees more freedom than permissively licensed software.
- reshlo 5y ago
  The choice often isn’t between having a given derivative work be permissively licensed or copyleft. It’s between having the derivative work exist at all or not. As a software author, choosing a license that requires people to be subject to more conditions to use my software is giving them less freedom, not more. If someone makes a derivative work with a restrictive license, that doesn’t make my software any less free.
  - fn-mote 5y ago
    > that doesn’t make my software any less free You might say it makes your software less yours, though. A restrictive license protects your interest in the code. After all, that's why companies are releasing their code under restrictive licenses. 100% agree there's a tradeoff of this with popularity, and it will never matter for almost everyone. But the people for whom it does matter get upset sometimes --- licensing is a choice that needs to be made with eyes wide open.

rapnie 5y ago

This is a matter of hot debate, and I don't want to trigger such discussion. AFAIU it is a bit of perspective of where the freedom is. With BSD there's more 'freedom' to incorporate with proprietary code, which eases commercialization. Companies like it better because of that and are likelier contributors. With GPL, while you can still monetize your code, protects the freedom of the Commons better by preventing the proprietary commercialization of open source code. And that is a reason why many businesses shun it. Personally I am in favor of the 4 freedoms of open-source and like to use (A)GPL.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Yeah, agree it is hotly debated and not worth discussing further. I've recently been bitten by GPL and it's fresh on my mind how insidious it can be. That said, I work in commercial environment where BSD-licensed software is highly regarded.
- tarsinge 5y ago
  Saying that corporations prefer something they can profit from without giving back vs something they can not is circular reasoning to me. Conversely if you look on the other side you'll see developers bitten by permissive software licences (MongoDB, Elasticsearch, ...).
  - snovv_crash 5y ago
    "without giving back" is a bit of an exaggeration. You could have a giant 20M line proprietary codebase, and if you incorporate a 20-line function from a GPL source, GPL says you need to relicense the whole thing. I prefer the MPLv2, it lets commercial users actually use the code, but they still have to contribute back any changes they make.
    - yeahforsureman 5y ago
      Or lacking adequate case law, that's what the FSF et al. would want you to believe, anyhow. Although a bit vaguely drafted in this respect, the copyleft effect of GPL depends on the concept of a derivative work under copyright law. It would be a bit far-fetched to claim that in your example, the combination of the function and the codebase is a derivative of the function you incorporated. Anyway, because the fact that people think GPL is that extensive is enough to create unnecessary problems, I too prefer MPL, where the copyleft scope is defined very clearly for its use case.
      - reshlo 5y ago
        I don’t think it matters whether the GPL can successfully be enforced against the example you describe. The license’s author intended that it could be, and that is what matters. A philosophical disagreement with the license’s intent shouldn’t be overlooked just because the license might not actually be enforceable.
    - rini17 5y ago
      So you would be actually fine with GPL if excerpts up to 1000 lines were not covered by copyleft?
      - snovv_crash 5y ago
        No, the GPL is for what it's for, large codebases like Linux where you want to make sure it doesn't fragment too badly. Most code isn't this, though.
    - 5y ago

Seirdy 5y ago

With few exceptions, I generally view the purpose of permissive licenses as "encouraging derivative software with EULAs and other restrictions", and the purpose of copyleft licenses as only allowing derivatives that don't restrict such freedoms. Copyleft software therefore guarantees more freedom than permissively licensed software.

reshlo 5y ago
The choice often isn’t between having a given derivative work be permissively licensed or copyleft. It’s between having the derivative work exist at all or not. As a software author, choosing a license that requires people to be subject to more conditions to use my software is giving them less freedom, not more. If someone makes a derivative work with a restrictive license, that doesn’t make my software any less free.
- fn-mote 5y ago
  > that doesn’t make my software any less free You might say it makes your software less yours, though. A restrictive license protects your interest in the code. After all, that's why companies are releasing their code under restrictive licenses. 100% agree there's a tradeoff of this with popularity, and it will never matter for almost everyone. But the people for whom it does matter get upset sometimes --- licensing is a choice that needs to be made with eyes wide open.