5 ms·

LGPL plays no small role in its success. The only reason to be against it is if you wish to appropriate it for yourself.

naikrovek 4y ago
lol it doesn't work this way. one person can't take it away from everyone else if it's, say, MIT-licensed. person A taking code private causes exactly zero harm to person B. this is why I say that viral licenses restrict freedom of users; they do not guarantee freedom to users. The GPL actively prevents users from taking certain actions -- actions which do not and can not take anything at all from any other user of that code.
- necheffa 4y ago
  Person A taking a code base private that solves 95% of their problem and refusing to release fixes-and-features upstream hurts the entire community.
  - naikrovek 4y ago
    how? exactly how? that person would not have even made the changes to GPL code. I won't work on ANYTHING GPL or AGPL because I don't want to be forced into doing anything. so how does that hurt the community? you're claiming ownership over code I haven't even written, now?
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > how so? Three words: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
      - naikrovek 4y ago
        no, that's a straw man. you're making up events that are not part of this and acting as if they necessarily occur. they do not.
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        > you're making up events that are not part of this Part of what? You've asked how does person not contributing changes upstream hurt the community. I gave an example of a real-world scenario which has happened with permissive software many times. How is it a strawman?
- webmobdev 4y ago
  > they do not guarantee freedom to users. FSF GPL Licenses are the only open source licenses that protect the freedom of the creator and the users (the end user who actually uses the software as a product). Most permissive licenses only seek to protect coder / author attribution. Programmers who use such license for their code don't mind if you use it in open or closed source project as long as they are credited for creating the code used. But the goal behind FSF GPL is to ensure both author attribution and more importantly that the source code is always available to the user. So from a user perspective, FSF GPL license guarantees more freedom to a user because using a GPL license software means the user will always have access to the source code. And so they will always have the freedom to modify it. As a programmer, GPL gives you the right to use or modify the GPL licensed code as you want. You have to share the modifications (make your source code open and available) only if you decide to distribute your application to others. That means if I buy the application from you, GPL says I as a user must also get the complete source code of the application (if I so desire).
  - naikrovek 4y ago
    > But the goal behind FSF GPL is to ensure both author attribution and more importantly that the source code is always available to the user. if I close some MIT-licensed code, and make changes, how exactly is that denying attribution or taking code away from anyone? the code I started with is there for anyone else, untouched by me or my closed variant. if the license requires attribution, I will attribute, no problem. how does anything one person does privately with open code change anything about that code elsewhere? exactly how, please?
    - RobbieGM 4y ago
      If you then distribute that modified software, users don't have the freedom to modify it in turn since your source code would be unavailable.
      - naikrovek 4y ago
        exactly, I wrote it and I may not want to give that away. GPL prevents me from keeping licensing rights over my own changes. the GPL forces me to give up copyright over my own code before it is even written. "freedom" my white ass. that's a jail.
- peterashford 4y ago
  Its not GPL thou. LGPL is very different in how 'viral' it is, which is the general issue that people have with GPL (validly, imo)

naikrovek 4y ago

lol it doesn't work this way. one person can't take it away from everyone else if it's, say, MIT-licensed. person A taking code private causes exactly zero harm to person B. this is why I say that viral licenses restrict freedom of users; they do not guarantee freedom to users. The GPL actively prevents users from taking certain actions -- actions which do not and can not take anything at all from any other user of that code.

necheffa 4y ago
Person A taking a code base private that solves 95% of their problem and refusing to release fixes-and-features upstream hurts the entire community.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  how? exactly how? that person would not have even made the changes to GPL code. I won't work on ANYTHING GPL or AGPL because I don't want to be forced into doing anything. so how does that hurt the community? you're claiming ownership over code I haven't even written, now?
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > how so? Three words: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
    - naikrovek 4y ago
      no, that's a straw man. you're making up events that are not part of this and acting as if they necessarily occur. they do not.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        > you're making up events that are not part of this Part of what? You've asked how does person not contributing changes upstream hurt the community. I gave an example of a real-world scenario which has happened with permissive software many times. How is it a strawman?
webmobdev 4y ago
> they do not guarantee freedom to users. FSF GPL Licenses are the only open source licenses that protect the freedom of the creator and the users (the end user who actually uses the software as a product). Most permissive licenses only seek to protect coder / author attribution. Programmers who use such license for their code don't mind if you use it in open or closed source project as long as they are credited for creating the code used. But the goal behind FSF GPL is to ensure both author attribution and more importantly that the source code is always available to the user. So from a user perspective, FSF GPL license guarantees more freedom to a user because using a GPL license software means the user will always have access to the source code. And so they will always have the freedom to modify it. As a programmer, GPL gives you the right to use or modify the GPL licensed code as you want. You have to share the modifications (make your source code open and available) only if you decide to distribute your application to others. That means if I buy the application from you, GPL says I as a user must also get the complete source code of the application (if I so desire).
- naikrovek 4y ago
  > But the goal behind FSF GPL is to ensure both author attribution and more importantly that the source code is always available to the user. if I close some MIT-licensed code, and make changes, how exactly is that denying attribution or taking code away from anyone? the code I started with is there for anyone else, untouched by me or my closed variant. if the license requires attribution, I will attribute, no problem. how does anything one person does privately with open code change anything about that code elsewhere? exactly how, please?
  - RobbieGM 4y ago
    If you then distribute that modified software, users don't have the freedom to modify it in turn since your source code would be unavailable.
    - naikrovek 4y ago
      exactly, I wrote it and I may not want to give that away. GPL prevents me from keeping licensing rights over my own changes. the GPL forces me to give up copyright over my own code before it is even written. "freedom" my white ass. that's a jail.
peterashford 4y ago
Its not GPL thou. LGPL is very different in how 'viral' it is, which is the general issue that people have with GPL (validly, imo)