4 ms·

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

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.
- fn-mote 5y ago
  > I prefer the MPLv2, it lets commercial users actually use the code, but they still have to contribute back any changes they make. Sure, but how is this verifiable? Not verifiable = not happening. Anyway, the idea of using a 20 line function in a 20M line codebase is a total strawman. Think of it from the 20 line function author's point of view - free money for corporate? They lack the expertise internally to write this function?? It's crypto code and getting it 100% right is extremely valuable? Then they need to be licensing it from the author. It sounds like the idea you have here is that someone has licensed their code under the GPL but "didn't really mean it"? I think you should flesh out that side of your argument... why should corporate be permitted to use this code? Authors who are worried can release their stuff as MIT or CC0.
  - snovv_crash 5y ago
    Companies have a legal department to make sure this kind of thing is followed, otherwise they have potentially huge liabilities. For things that have a single author, the relicense option is possible, yes. But how about projects that have several? To me the great thing about software is that other people can use the code I wrote without it costing me anything. I understand the various attitudes of wanting others to be bound by some terms of sharing the work they do too, or paying for a license, but at least from my experience it limits the adoption of my code, and I'd rather my code be useful in as many places as possible, with the only requirement being that if you fix any bugs or extend the functionality in a deeply intrusive way, you contribute that back.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
systemvoltage 5y ago
Not all corporations are assholes. Many give back, many people contribute code often becomes the reason for the project to exist. They give life to open source projects by buying support and sustenaining their livelihood. I am sick of this constant myopic view that all corporations are evil and people working there have no regard for open source development. The truth is probably closer to being opposite than the anti-corporate crusader zeitgeist of HN. The point of the original comment was to express that behind all the corporations, there are just real people like you and me.
- tarsinge 5y ago
  I was only commenting on the reasoning. It's not a question of evil, just of basic business incentives. > The truth is probably closer to being opposite than the anti-corporate crusader zeitgeist of HN. The point of the original comment was to express that behind all the corporations, there are just real people like you and me. I'm a (small) business owner so I'm fully conscious of that. But it's a reality that past a certain size a corporation will optimize for its best interests given the current set of rules (law). If a company contribute to open-source it's not because they are nice, it's because the added value in marketing/hiring/commoditizing their competitors makes business sense, otherwise no matter their convictions people would get punished in their performance review, and the stock value would tank. Only specific corporate structures allow people inside a company to go against the baseline.

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.
fn-mote 5y ago
> I prefer the MPLv2, it lets commercial users actually use the code, but they still have to contribute back any changes they make. Sure, but how is this verifiable? Not verifiable = not happening. Anyway, the idea of using a 20 line function in a 20M line codebase is a total strawman. Think of it from the 20 line function author's point of view - free money for corporate? They lack the expertise internally to write this function?? It's crypto code and getting it 100% right is extremely valuable? Then they need to be licensing it from the author. It sounds like the idea you have here is that someone has licensed their code under the GPL but "didn't really mean it"? I think you should flesh out that side of your argument... why should corporate be permitted to use this code? Authors who are worried can release their stuff as MIT or CC0.
- snovv_crash 5y ago
  Companies have a legal department to make sure this kind of thing is followed, otherwise they have potentially huge liabilities. For things that have a single author, the relicense option is possible, yes. But how about projects that have several? To me the great thing about software is that other people can use the code I wrote without it costing me anything. I understand the various attitudes of wanting others to be bound by some terms of sharing the work they do too, or paying for a license, but at least from my experience it limits the adoption of my code, and I'd rather my code be useful in as many places as possible, with the only requirement being that if you fix any bugs or extend the functionality in a deeply intrusive way, you contribute that back.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

systemvoltage 5y ago

Not all corporations are assholes. Many give back, many people contribute code often becomes the reason for the project to exist. They give life to open source projects by buying support and sustenaining their livelihood. I am sick of this constant myopic view that all corporations are evil and people working there have no regard for open source development. The truth is probably closer to being opposite than the anti-corporate crusader zeitgeist of HN. The point of the original comment was to express that behind all the corporations, there are just real people like you and me.

tarsinge 5y ago
I was only commenting on the reasoning. It's not a question of evil, just of basic business incentives. > The truth is probably closer to being opposite than the anti-corporate crusader zeitgeist of HN. The point of the original comment was to express that behind all the corporations, there are just real people like you and me. I'm a (small) business owner so I'm fully conscious of that. But it's a reality that past a certain size a corporation will optimize for its best interests given the current set of rules (law). If a company contribute to open-source it's not because they are nice, it's because the added value in marketing/hiring/commoditizing their competitors makes business sense, otherwise no matter their convictions people would get punished in their performance review, and the stock value would tank. Only specific corporate structures allow people inside a company to go against the baseline.