5 ms·

> Developers are scared away by lGPL. For me it's very much the opposite, I refuse to contribute code to anything licensed under the MIT/BSD/etc family of lang

> Developers are scared away by lGPL. For me it's very much the opposite, I refuse to contribute code to anything licensed under the MIT/BSD/etc family of languages. It makes me sad to see so much confusion, incorrect information, naiveté and paranoia going around regarding the GPL that it's scaring people off. I think that most of these people would feel differently if they understood better. I think the systematic defanging and watering down of the free software movement is a great loss.

rocqua 5y ago
I don't think people who shy away from GPL are in favor of the free software movement. People who advocate for MIT like licenses like 'open source', but they usually explicitly reject the ideas from free software. Some of these concerns are simply commercial, and some are philosophical. I think people might have been convinced to dislike GPL. But I don't think that was misinformation or confusion. It might be fear-mongering about the effects of a 'viral license', but we can only guess at their effects. Personally I dislike GPL because it limits developers like me, and because I find the (roughly true) idea 'you can only use GPL code if you're own code is GPL' too coercive. I don't think that is a virtuous method for improving the world.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  If those people are coherent I assume they are also contributing and running one of the BSDs as their main UNIX.
  - jabl 5y ago
    Huh? I would guess most people are pragmatic and are happy to use and contribute to any software licensed under OSD-compliant terms. You can do that while still preferring to contribute to permissively licensed projects. Of course that goes both ways, I don't see many free software purists that refuse to use permissively licensed software either.
- jcelerier 5y ago
  I have yet to see BSD / MIT meaningfully improving my personal life, quite unlike the GPL which pretty much made my career possible thanks to the wealth of GPL software under Linux
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    Have you ever used software linked against OpenSSL? It’s licensed under APL, which is very similar to the BSD family of license - it allows use in closed source projects. Or OpenSSH - it’s developed by the OpenBSD folks and licensed under a BSD style license. Or Firefox - licensed under MPL, very similar to APL. The rust compiler is dual-licensed under MIT/APL. Both ruby and python are dual-licensed with at least one license from the BSD/MIT group, the python license itself is similar to BSD as well. The Linux kernel allows incorporating BSD/MIT licensed code in the kernel itself and though I didn’t check, I’m certain there are examples.
    - my123 5y ago
      > and though I didn’t check, I’m certain there are examples. The whole GPU driver subsystem for example.
    - jcelerier 5y ago
      > Have you ever used software linked against OpenSSL? It’s licensed under APL, which is very similar to the BSD family of license - it allows use in closed source projects. well, if I could I'd definitely choose gnutls over it even before getting to licensing issues tbh. Also how much better did it being useable in closed-source projects (those I don't use unless there's really no other viable choice and doing it myself is not an option) make it ? > Or OpenSSH - it’s developed by the OpenBSD folks and licensed under a BSD style license. yes, though I'm not sure if I'm using any openssh-specific interface, ssh -X maybe ? > Or Firefox - licensed under MPL, very similar to APL. MPL is closer to GPL in spirit than MIT/BSD, no ? AFAIK you can't make a closed-source derivative of Firefox (which is what matters). > The rust compiler is dual-licensed under MIT/APL. I don't use it. The only Rust software I'm using is ripgrep I believe ? > Both ruby and python are dual-licensed with at least one license from the BSD/MIT group, the python license itself is similar to BSD as well I don't use either neither as a developer or a user, the huge majority of my direct interaction with my computer is through C or C++ software; mainly KDE stuff. But all of this is besides my point - if there wasn't a big ecosystem of (L)GPL software existing when I was a teen (Linux, KDE, core/binutils, GCC etc) I'm not sure I could have taught myself enough computing to achieve what I seek to. If everything was BSD I doubt these software would have evolved into something good enough to make for a correct desktop experience (last time I tried a BSD it was deeefinitely not useable enough for me unless replacing most of the BSD base with the GNU one like I do on my mac machines for instance). I've also used proprietary software for instance, but I would not say they made my life "meaningfully better".
- jimktrains2 5y ago
  > Personally I dislike GPL because it limits developers like me, and because I find the (roughly true) idea 'you can only use GPL code if you're own code is GPL' too coercive. I don't think that is a virtuous method for improving the world. I have no idea what you're talking about. You can use gpl code without being the owner of said code. You're thinking in very selfish terms. The gpl is bot about safeguarding rights for the developer, but instead it safeguards rights for the user. When code is licensed as gpl, it's a promise to the user that they'll always be able to get, use, and modify the code for the software. That comes at the cost of developers not being allowed to make the code private. I think that safeguarding user rights is a virtuous method of improving the world.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    > I have no idea what you're talking about. You can use gpl code without being the owner of said code. When I use GPL code in my projects, that forces me to publish my projects under GPL. That limits my freedom as a developer. This is indeed thinking about my needs more than thinking about general needs. > I think that safeguarding user rights is a virtuous method of improving the world. I agree that the world would be better if more/all code were open source and user-modifiable. I do not agree that the ends (user freedom) justify the means (GPL or other copy-left licenses). I think the means are harmful because they are coercive. If we look at the effect of GPL on the ecosystem, e.g. ZFS, you see that people re-license to GPL because the alternative is untenable maintenance wise. This re-licensing is not happening because people agree with the license, but for practical reasons. Essentially a few people have decided "this is exactly how things need to be" and through copyleft licenses, they are twisting the arm of everyone else. That is not how I think it should be decided how intelectual propert rights should be improved. In the ZFS case, essentially what GPL was meant to prevent happened. There was an open piece of software (ZFS), people were making improvements to that software (ZFS on Linux getting development), but they could not be used upstream. GPL is a one-way street in the open source world. It sucks up code from other open source projects but it cannot give anything back. In some cases, I think this makes GPL a net negative for the open-source (using the wide definition) community. I think the only defense GPL can offer here is "but that part of the open-source community is wrong and harmful". I think it makes sense that the non-GPL parts of the open-source community are not happy about that stance. In general "if you just do exactly as I want there is no problem" is not how we should treat each other in my opinion. We should leave room for different viewpoints and some form of discussion. Rather than saying "my way or the highway". If you take that stance, then don't be surprised people don't want to cooperate.
the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
The number of people who refuse to commit to MIT/BSD/etc. code is almost not existing, the number of people who refuse or cannot commit to GPL is plentiful. > It makes me sad to see so much confusion, incorrect information, naiveté and paranoia going around regarding the GPL I agree, there are still too many people who think the GPL is _just_ another license. It's not and many figured this out the hard way after they already accepted contributions under the GPL and moving away has become hard to impossible.
- kzrdude 5y ago
  Moving away from any particular license is hard to impossible.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  Not being able to relicense code provided by other people without their agreement is definitely a feature of any license. Let’s not kid ourself: the main reason companies don’t like the GPL is because they don’t want to share the code they actually use in their products. Making that impossible is an intended consequence of the license not some unforeseen flaw. If you are fine with companies profiteering from your work then choosing the MIT or BSD license definitely make sense. The whole discussion really is about commercial interest in the end.
  - the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
    The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. Given the murky laws around copyright reassignment getting contributions in under a more liberal license so you retain extra rights yourself is tricky. There are many projects which learned after a few years that their choice of license backfired on them.
    - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
      > The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. If you accept contributions, that’s not your work anymore. That’s your work and your contributors work. You are still perfectly free of removing said work and commercialise your own. You just can’t profite from the work of others without asking them. That’s a feature of the license not a risk. > Given the murky laws around copyright reassignment getting contributions in under a more liberal license so you retain extra rights yourself is tricky. You are misrepresenting the situation once again. It is not about retaining your own right. The whole issue is on the work of others.

rocqua 5y ago

I don't think people who shy away from GPL are in favor of the free software movement. People who advocate for MIT like licenses like 'open source', but they usually explicitly reject the ideas from free software. Some of these concerns are simply commercial, and some are philosophical. I think people might have been convinced to dislike GPL. But I don't think that was misinformation or confusion. It might be fear-mongering about the effects of a 'viral license', but we can only guess at their effects. Personally I dislike GPL because it limits developers like me, and because I find the (roughly true) idea 'you can only use GPL code if you're own code is GPL' too coercive. I don't think that is a virtuous method for improving the world.

pjmlp 5y ago
If those people are coherent I assume they are also contributing and running one of the BSDs as their main UNIX.
- jabl 5y ago
  Huh? I would guess most people are pragmatic and are happy to use and contribute to any software licensed under OSD-compliant terms. You can do that while still preferring to contribute to permissively licensed projects. Of course that goes both ways, I don't see many free software purists that refuse to use permissively licensed software either.
jcelerier 5y ago
I have yet to see BSD / MIT meaningfully improving my personal life, quite unlike the GPL which pretty much made my career possible thanks to the wealth of GPL software under Linux
- Xylakant 5y ago
  Have you ever used software linked against OpenSSL? It’s licensed under APL, which is very similar to the BSD family of license - it allows use in closed source projects. Or OpenSSH - it’s developed by the OpenBSD folks and licensed under a BSD style license. Or Firefox - licensed under MPL, very similar to APL. The rust compiler is dual-licensed under MIT/APL. Both ruby and python are dual-licensed with at least one license from the BSD/MIT group, the python license itself is similar to BSD as well. The Linux kernel allows incorporating BSD/MIT licensed code in the kernel itself and though I didn’t check, I’m certain there are examples.
  - my123 5y ago
    > and though I didn’t check, I’m certain there are examples. The whole GPU driver subsystem for example.
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    > Have you ever used software linked against OpenSSL? It’s licensed under APL, which is very similar to the BSD family of license - it allows use in closed source projects. well, if I could I'd definitely choose gnutls over it even before getting to licensing issues tbh. Also how much better did it being useable in closed-source projects (those I don't use unless there's really no other viable choice and doing it myself is not an option) make it ? > Or OpenSSH - it’s developed by the OpenBSD folks and licensed under a BSD style license. yes, though I'm not sure if I'm using any openssh-specific interface, ssh -X maybe ? > Or Firefox - licensed under MPL, very similar to APL. MPL is closer to GPL in spirit than MIT/BSD, no ? AFAIK you can't make a closed-source derivative of Firefox (which is what matters). > The rust compiler is dual-licensed under MIT/APL. I don't use it. The only Rust software I'm using is ripgrep I believe ? > Both ruby and python are dual-licensed with at least one license from the BSD/MIT group, the python license itself is similar to BSD as well I don't use either neither as a developer or a user, the huge majority of my direct interaction with my computer is through C or C++ software; mainly KDE stuff. But all of this is besides my point - if there wasn't a big ecosystem of (L)GPL software existing when I was a teen (Linux, KDE, core/binutils, GCC etc) I'm not sure I could have taught myself enough computing to achieve what I seek to. If everything was BSD I doubt these software would have evolved into something good enough to make for a correct desktop experience (last time I tried a BSD it was deeefinitely not useable enough for me unless replacing most of the BSD base with the GNU one like I do on my mac machines for instance). I've also used proprietary software for instance, but I would not say they made my life "meaningfully better".
jimktrains2 5y ago
> Personally I dislike GPL because it limits developers like me, and because I find the (roughly true) idea 'you can only use GPL code if you're own code is GPL' too coercive. I don't think that is a virtuous method for improving the world. I have no idea what you're talking about. You can use gpl code without being the owner of said code. You're thinking in very selfish terms. The gpl is bot about safeguarding rights for the developer, but instead it safeguards rights for the user. When code is licensed as gpl, it's a promise to the user that they'll always be able to get, use, and modify the code for the software. That comes at the cost of developers not being allowed to make the code private. I think that safeguarding user rights is a virtuous method of improving the world.
- rocqua 5y ago
  > I have no idea what you're talking about. You can use gpl code without being the owner of said code. When I use GPL code in my projects, that forces me to publish my projects under GPL. That limits my freedom as a developer. This is indeed thinking about my needs more than thinking about general needs. > I think that safeguarding user rights is a virtuous method of improving the world. I agree that the world would be better if more/all code were open source and user-modifiable. I do not agree that the ends (user freedom) justify the means (GPL or other copy-left licenses). I think the means are harmful because they are coercive. If we look at the effect of GPL on the ecosystem, e.g. ZFS, you see that people re-license to GPL because the alternative is untenable maintenance wise. This re-licensing is not happening because people agree with the license, but for practical reasons. Essentially a few people have decided "this is exactly how things need to be" and through copyleft licenses, they are twisting the arm of everyone else. That is not how I think it should be decided how intelectual propert rights should be improved. In the ZFS case, essentially what GPL was meant to prevent happened. There was an open piece of software (ZFS), people were making improvements to that software (ZFS on Linux getting development), but they could not be used upstream. GPL is a one-way street in the open source world. It sucks up code from other open source projects but it cannot give anything back. In some cases, I think this makes GPL a net negative for the open-source (using the wide definition) community. I think the only defense GPL can offer here is "but that part of the open-source community is wrong and harmful". I think it makes sense that the non-GPL parts of the open-source community are not happy about that stance. In general "if you just do exactly as I want there is no problem" is not how we should treat each other in my opinion. We should leave room for different viewpoints and some form of discussion. Rather than saying "my way or the highway". If you take that stance, then don't be surprised people don't want to cooperate.

the_mitsuhiko 5y ago

The number of people who refuse to commit to MIT/BSD/etc. code is almost not existing, the number of people who refuse or cannot commit to GPL is plentiful. > It makes me sad to see so much confusion, incorrect information, naiveté and paranoia going around regarding the GPL I agree, there are still too many people who think the GPL is _just_ another license. It's not and many figured this out the hard way after they already accepted contributions under the GPL and moving away has become hard to impossible.

kzrdude 5y ago
Moving away from any particular license is hard to impossible.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
Not being able to relicense code provided by other people without their agreement is definitely a feature of any license. Let’s not kid ourself: the main reason companies don’t like the GPL is because they don’t want to share the code they actually use in their products. Making that impossible is an intended consequence of the license not some unforeseen flaw. If you are fine with companies profiteering from your work then choosing the MIT or BSD license definitely make sense. The whole discussion really is about commercial interest in the end.
- the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
  The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. Given the murky laws around copyright reassignment getting contributions in under a more liberal license so you retain extra rights yourself is tricky. There are many projects which learned after a few years that their choice of license backfired on them.
  - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
    > The biggest risk of the GPL is in fact not companies but to you as a creator. If you plan on commercializing your work in any capacity, accepting contributions under the GPL will be the end of that. If you accept contributions, that’s not your work anymore. That’s your work and your contributors work. You are still perfectly free of removing said work and commercialise your own. You just can’t profite from the work of others without asking them. That’s a feature of the license not a risk. > Given the murky laws around copyright reassignment getting contributions in under a more liberal license so you retain extra rights yourself is tricky. You are misrepresenting the situation once again. It is not about retaining your own right. The whole issue is on the work of others.