3 ms·

> A flaw in OP's assertion is that I feel that most of what we have today wouldn't exist if it weren't for the GPL licensing. That is pure RMS rethoric. The na

> A flaw in OP's assertion is that I feel that most of what we have today wouldn't exist if it weren't for the GPL licensing. That is pure RMS rethoric. The narrative that free software exists because of GPL is a compelling one (and sounds plausible), but its not based on reality. It was quite common in the end of the 70's and beginning of the 80's (specially after the creation of the C language) to distribute software in source form, instead of binary packages. Some early examples of this that still exists today are the BSD utilities (granted, now without the Berkeley clause), laying in the ground the notion that GPL is determinant in preserving OSS as an ecosystem. The "trigger story" about not having access to a printer driver source code is also often simplified. The printer was a prototype of a commercial product, and he was offered the source under an NDA. More details on this in https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html > If the Linux kernel, or the GNU software suite hadn't been GPL'd in the first place While there is no arguing that GPL is at least in part responsible for the success of Linux, it wasn't GPL until version 0.99. The major reason why you use Linux today is because of the "unix wars" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars) - the lack of a free i386 unix system is what drove Linus to write one in the first place. If AT&T was less beligerant at the time, you'd probably be running some form of BSD :)

deafpolygon 4y ago
> you'd probably be running some form of BSD :) You mean macOS? Or Playstation 3/4? Proprietary, non-free form of BSD, yes.
- nix23 4y ago
  You use unfree Linux too...for example google. What people seam to forget, under GPL you don't need to give your code back if your DON'T redistribute it. And that's why google forbids the use of AGPL internally. >You mean macOS? https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu Why dont you know that? If your a apple user and so interested in opensource?
- Gud 4y ago
  Why wouldn’t you be using one of the many freely distributed BSDs if software freedom is so important to you? That’s what I do, anyway.
- aforwardslash 4y ago
  You mean macOS? > The relevant parts of macOS for this discussion are actually opensource (kernel & most userland utilities), albreit not updated often; > Playstation 3/4? Does the fact that product XYZ has a BSD-based product reduces or affect the continuity of the opensource project? No, it doesn't. And that is the beauty of BSD. Some companies build closed source products on it, some companies actually give back contributions (such as Netflix). Its fine either way. > Proprietary, non-free form of BSD, yes. Well, Microsoft used BSD code to some extent in previous versions of Windows (afaik tcp stack, services for unix, ftp client, etc). On the other hand, I do use Android-based devices - which are, for practical purposes, mostly a generic non-free form of Linux. In fact, not only the source code (when you can get it easily) is almost useless for practical use, but often bootcode and drivers are proprietary signed blobs - without which the device is just a fancy brick. Also, I'd argue there is little value brought into the linux project just because it is a core Android component. How is this scenario different from a "non-free form of BSD"?
  - ryao 4y ago
    > Does the fact that product XYZ has a BSD-based product reduces or affect the continuity of the opensource project? No, it doesn't. And that is the beauty of BSD. Some companies build closed source products on it, some companies actually give back contributions (such as Netflix). Its fine either way. The irony of the GPL is that it does not require giving back. The only requirement is to provide source code when you do binary distribution. There is no provision about giving back to the upstream developers. Forced code dumps are not giving back and projects like Linux do not consider them to be a form of giving back. Sending useful patches and responding to maintainer feedback would be giving back. The GPL is no better at obtaining that than a 2-clause BSD license.
- ryao 4y ago
  > You mean macOS? Or Playstation 3/4? Proprietary, non-free form of BSD, yes. As someone who has been dedicated to OSS since I started writing software and also wrote some proprietary code for the health care industry (which was not open sourced mainly because there was no point since it would have been a code dump useless to people because hardware patents were involved), I have this feeling: I would rather good code be reused by proprietary stuff, because someone is going to put that code in systems where failures kill people and it is better that they reuse good code to prevent deaths. It is ridiculous to embrace a philosophy in software licenses where people dying because of your decision to deny good code to people writing proprietary software is okay. The OSS versus proprietary debate should not be done in a manner that causes fatalities.

deafpolygon 4y ago

> you'd probably be running some form of BSD :) You mean macOS? Or Playstation 3/4? Proprietary, non-free form of BSD, yes.

nix23 4y ago
You use unfree Linux too...for example google. What people seam to forget, under GPL you don't need to give your code back if your DON'T redistribute it. And that's why google forbids the use of AGPL internally. >You mean macOS? https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu Why dont you know that? If your a apple user and so interested in opensource?
Gud 4y ago
Why wouldn’t you be using one of the many freely distributed BSDs if software freedom is so important to you? That’s what I do, anyway.
aforwardslash 4y ago
You mean macOS? > The relevant parts of macOS for this discussion are actually opensource (kernel & most userland utilities), albreit not updated often; > Playstation 3/4? Does the fact that product XYZ has a BSD-based product reduces or affect the continuity of the opensource project? No, it doesn't. And that is the beauty of BSD. Some companies build closed source products on it, some companies actually give back contributions (such as Netflix). Its fine either way. > Proprietary, non-free form of BSD, yes. Well, Microsoft used BSD code to some extent in previous versions of Windows (afaik tcp stack, services for unix, ftp client, etc). On the other hand, I do use Android-based devices - which are, for practical purposes, mostly a generic non-free form of Linux. In fact, not only the source code (when you can get it easily) is almost useless for practical use, but often bootcode and drivers are proprietary signed blobs - without which the device is just a fancy brick. Also, I'd argue there is little value brought into the linux project just because it is a core Android component. How is this scenario different from a "non-free form of BSD"?
- ryao 4y ago
  > Does the fact that product XYZ has a BSD-based product reduces or affect the continuity of the opensource project? No, it doesn't. And that is the beauty of BSD. Some companies build closed source products on it, some companies actually give back contributions (such as Netflix). Its fine either way. The irony of the GPL is that it does not require giving back. The only requirement is to provide source code when you do binary distribution. There is no provision about giving back to the upstream developers. Forced code dumps are not giving back and projects like Linux do not consider them to be a form of giving back. Sending useful patches and responding to maintainer feedback would be giving back. The GPL is no better at obtaining that than a 2-clause BSD license.
ryao 4y ago
> You mean macOS? Or Playstation 3/4? Proprietary, non-free form of BSD, yes. As someone who has been dedicated to OSS since I started writing software and also wrote some proprietary code for the health care industry (which was not open sourced mainly because there was no point since it would have been a code dump useless to people because hardware patents were involved), I have this feeling: I would rather good code be reused by proprietary stuff, because someone is going to put that code in systems where failures kill people and it is better that they reuse good code to prevent deaths. It is ridiculous to embrace a philosophy in software licenses where people dying because of your decision to deny good code to people writing proprietary software is okay. The OSS versus proprietary debate should not be done in a manner that causes fatalities.