5 ms·

From the OpenBSD Copyright Policy (https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html) just for a different perspective from another FOSS p

by sbuk 5y ago

From the OpenBSD Copyright Policy (https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html) just for a different perspective from another FOSS project: "While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software. So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse of code and ideas rather than encouraging it..."

andrekandre 5y ago
> it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software whats the reason for that?
- sbuk 5y ago
  Because the GPL, specifically v3 is viral. The point being made in this statement is that the requirement to give back is potentially onerous for many commercial entities, and that this hinders open sharing rather than promoting it. It's a differing point of view. Notice that, unlike the majority of pro GPL comments, it doesn't use pejoratives or appeals to emotion to make it's point.
  - boogies 5y ago
    “Viral” is a term with a fairly pejorative emotional connotation and is not a very accurate way of describing copyleft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license#Criticism_of_the_term https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license#Criticism_of_t...
    - sbuk 5y ago
      The original statement doesn’t use pejoratives. Viral is the best way that I can describe it, I suppose insidious is better, but that too could be considered a pejorative. I’m struggling to find a word because I view it negatively.
      - noisem4ker 5y ago
        Maybe "self-propagating", or "self-preserving"? The term "insidious" would not be appropriate for sure, as it means "dangerous".
        sbuk 5y ago
        Self-preserving is the best. Thank you. I personally don't like self-propagating, when the truth is that it's free, but with a catch. Forcing people to do the right thing, even if the intent is good, is still forcing someone to do something the don't want to, or even can't.
        GhettoComputers 5y ago
        I like the viral word personally, I see it positively as popular. Free software is pretty popular its so popular that even non free software is turned into "free beer" free software! ;) If its free and open source, free to use (legal or not) people will use it virally, like Windows was virally pirated because it was free, and linux is virally used in servers since they don't have to pay per core to Microsoft.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      I don't see it as pejorative, its used positively in social media for popular. Making GPL licenses popular is good.
josephcsible 5y ago
I find this claim hard to believe since Linux is GPL, and it's used commercially way more than OpenBSD is.
- tyingq 5y ago
  Linux is something of a special case, as the vast majority of the users can "use it" without thinking about the implications of the GPL. Because, for example, there's a specific exception for software that uses Linux syscalls, and that glibc is licensed LGPL. That's not true for most uses of other GPL licensed libraries and software, where the license makes your code a "derivative work".
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    If you're just using Linux on your own servers, or writing userland software for it, then sure, the GPL is easy to comply with. But if you distribute hardware with Linux preinstalled on it, then you do have to provide all the source code. How is this meaningfully different from basic userland tools?
    - tyingq 5y ago
      Not that I'm agreeing with them, but many companies are wary of sharing their code because it opens up a path to replicate their services without paying for them. Vendors that distribute devices with Linux, though, are able to avoid that because the hardware is often still proprietary. Binary blobs still exist despite the Linux GPL license too. Even in projects that seem lauded by the "open source" community, like the Rpi. I just don't think Linux is a great example to explain to a company why they should be fine with licensing their software under the GPL. It's not a good direct comparison in most cases.
  - goohle 5y ago
    Of course, Linux is special case, KHTML/WebKit/Blink is special case, Android is special case, etc. Blame special cases.

by sbuk 5y ago

andrekandre 5y ago

> it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software whats the reason for that?

sbuk 5y ago
Because the GPL, specifically v3 is viral. The point being made in this statement is that the requirement to give back is potentially onerous for many commercial entities, and that this hinders open sharing rather than promoting it. It's a differing point of view. Notice that, unlike the majority of pro GPL comments, it doesn't use pejoratives or appeals to emotion to make it's point.
- boogies 5y ago
  “Viral” is a term with a fairly pejorative emotional connotation and is not a very accurate way of describing copyleft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license#Criticism_of_the_term https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license#Criticism_of_t...
  - sbuk 5y ago
    The original statement doesn’t use pejoratives. Viral is the best way that I can describe it, I suppose insidious is better, but that too could be considered a pejorative. I’m struggling to find a word because I view it negatively.
    - noisem4ker 5y ago
      Maybe "self-propagating", or "self-preserving"? The term "insidious" would not be appropriate for sure, as it means "dangerous".
      - sbuk 5y ago
        Self-preserving is the best. Thank you. I personally don't like self-propagating, when the truth is that it's free, but with a catch. Forcing people to do the right thing, even if the intent is good, is still forcing someone to do something the don't want to, or even can't.
        GhettoComputers 5y ago
        I like the viral word personally, I see it positively as popular. Free software is pretty popular its so popular that even non free software is turned into "free beer" free software! ;) If its free and open source, free to use (legal or not) people will use it virally, like Windows was virally pirated because it was free, and linux is virally used in servers since they don't have to pay per core to Microsoft.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    I don't see it as pejorative, its used positively in social media for popular. Making GPL licenses popular is good.

josephcsible 5y ago

I find this claim hard to believe since Linux is GPL, and it's used commercially way more than OpenBSD is.

tyingq 5y ago
Linux is something of a special case, as the vast majority of the users can "use it" without thinking about the implications of the GPL. Because, for example, there's a specific exception for software that uses Linux syscalls, and that glibc is licensed LGPL. That's not true for most uses of other GPL licensed libraries and software, where the license makes your code a "derivative work".
- josephcsible 5y ago
  If you're just using Linux on your own servers, or writing userland software for it, then sure, the GPL is easy to comply with. But if you distribute hardware with Linux preinstalled on it, then you do have to provide all the source code. How is this meaningfully different from basic userland tools?
  - tyingq 5y ago
    Not that I'm agreeing with them, but many companies are wary of sharing their code because it opens up a path to replicate their services without paying for them. Vendors that distribute devices with Linux, though, are able to avoid that because the hardware is often still proprietary. Binary blobs still exist despite the Linux GPL license too. Even in projects that seem lauded by the "open source" community, like the Rpi. I just don't think Linux is a great example to explain to a company why they should be fine with licensing their software under the GPL. It's not a good direct comparison in most cases.
- goohle 5y ago
  Of course, Linux is special case, KHTML/WebKit/Blink is special case, Android is special case, etc. Blame special cases.