3 ms·

> as adding third parties into this is going to be pretty unappealing for some developers On the contrary: the GPL is meant to PROTECT developers from patent t

> as adding third parties into this is going to be pretty unappealing for some developers On the contrary: the GPL is meant to PROTECT developers from patent trolls and freeloaders who what to turn FOSS into unpaid labor. It also protect users, and all developers are also users.

pabs3 4y ago
Nothing in the GPL does anything about freeloading; I'm using lots of GPL projects without contributing back funding, bug reports or patches, for eg glibc, GCC and so on. The only thing the GPL does is give the same access copyright holders have to software to downstream users.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  > The only thing the GPL does is give the same access copyright holders have to software to downstream users. I think that's what GP meant by preventing freeloading. Anything you do with the source code to GPL software needs to itself be distributed freely. Ie, a company can't freeload off of your work to build and then sell a proprietary project.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    Right, but they can freeload off your work and sell a GPL project (or even sell just setting up the project), distributing source to users, but those users not publishing or doing anything with the code and you not getting modifications back nor any kind of financial support.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  No. I wrote "freeloaders who what to turn FOSS into unpaid labor". Simply using or modifying for internal use is OK. We cross the line into unpaid labor when I release an application or a game, and somebody changes the name, maybe makes minor improvements, then sells it and takes all the money, takes all the credit, and even competes against my own software.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    That sounds like a description of what literally every Linux distro does. Take your code, potentially make a (minor) fork of it, sells access to it, sells support for it, maybe sells hosting for it (Amazon), takes all the money, maybe gives back patches or maybe not and competes with your own builds of the software. I think that what you want (no competition from forks or downstream redistributors) would not comply with the Open Source Definition (or DFSG) nor the Free Software Definition. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

pabs3 4y ago

Nothing in the GPL does anything about freeloading; I'm using lots of GPL projects without contributing back funding, bug reports or patches, for eg glibc, GCC and so on. The only thing the GPL does is give the same access copyright holders have to software to downstream users.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
> The only thing the GPL does is give the same access copyright holders have to software to downstream users. I think that's what GP meant by preventing freeloading. Anything you do with the source code to GPL software needs to itself be distributed freely. Ie, a company can't freeload off of your work to build and then sell a proprietary project.
- pabs3 4y ago
  Right, but they can freeload off your work and sell a GPL project (or even sell just setting up the project), distributing source to users, but those users not publishing or doing anything with the code and you not getting modifications back nor any kind of financial support.
goodpoint 4y ago
No. I wrote "freeloaders who what to turn FOSS into unpaid labor". Simply using or modifying for internal use is OK. We cross the line into unpaid labor when I release an application or a game, and somebody changes the name, maybe makes minor improvements, then sells it and takes all the money, takes all the credit, and even competes against my own software.
- pabs3 4y ago
  That sounds like a description of what literally every Linux distro does. Take your code, potentially make a (minor) fork of it, sells access to it, sells support for it, maybe sells hosting for it (Amazon), takes all the money, maybe gives back patches or maybe not and competes with your own builds of the software. I think that what you want (no competition from forks or downstream redistributors) would not comply with the Open Source Definition (or DFSG) nor the Free Software Definition. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html