4 ms·

The problem with GPL is its a contaminating license, there are problems proving violations, and shaking people down like a commercial entity is toxic. I prefer

The problem with GPL is its a contaminating license, there are problems proving violations, and shaking people down like a commercial entity is toxic. I prefer Apache 2.0, as who knows where chunks of code end up 10 years from now. If you are able, than its good karma to support the community with your own development hours and or fiscal donations. =)

bitL 4y ago
The whole point of GPL is that nobody gets to ride free without contributing sources back to community. Of course companies prefer Apache or similar licenses. But then you end up with Amazon taking over products they didn't develop, never paid a cent to original developers and squeezed all fiscal potential out of the product, killing off the original.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  Actually, if you can make money from my old code it makes me happy. You are correct in that Bezos does little for the community, and AWS tends to repackage community projects. Yet, most firms do put in many paid hours on kernel development etc. Have a wonderful day =)
  - funnymony 4y ago
    > Yet, most firms do put in many paid hours on kernel development etc. Linux kernel uses GPL.
    - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
      Indeed, but my point was the license is not always appropriate for some businesses who still wish to participate in FOSS. Have a great day =)
- pabs3 4y ago
  > contributing sources back to community Nothing in the GPL requires this, only distributing sources down to your users, who may or may not then redistribute the sources back upstream.
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    See the post on the LGPL static-linking issue for porting, and why the wxWidget library license had to create an exception. The project contamination happens even with the LGPL. The subject was contaminating licenses, and why they are not appropriate in some situations. Cheers =)
- maxhille 4y ago
  I offer you a different perspective: GPL (ie. Copyleft) guarantees "open source" for _users_ of the software Apache (ie. permissive) gives source code to _developers_.
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    Apache gives the source code to everyone, and a choice to the receiver. One may be surprised by having faith in peoples goodwill. =)
UncleEntity 4y ago
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Most of my code, being I usually just make python wrappers around C/C++ libraries I want to play with, retains whatever license the original library uses. That’s the license they want, that’s the license I follow. The rare occasion I actually put up original code on GitHub (not really sure I’ve ever done that though, I have a bad yak shaving addiction…would have to check so “theoretically”) I just use a BSD license because I don’t care — some jurisdictions require a license, that the most free one and I’d be happy if someone used my code for whatever.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  "The Dude Abides"... that film was epic. =) I also like the LGPL or wxWidgets licenses, as it encourages professional linux application development/ports. (Qt5 was an example of doing things wrong in my opinion.) I agree it is a personal choice, and I like giving people more freedom to build. The punitive culture around GPLv3 is especially unsavory. =)
  - vore 4y ago
    Some people like being nice and that's great! However, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in authors who put their blood and sweat into the software they write and expecting some kind of concession for it. If that's not what you want to do, then that's your choice. But flippantly characterizing authors who really only want the source code to be made public as "punitive" and "especially unsavory" really rubs me the wrong way when they're basically giving away their labor for free – it's downright altruistic compared to the unsavory, punitive measures many corporate entities would rather take.
    - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
      "punitive" = karma -8 QED I never inferred other people should choose a specific license, but rather stated the fact GPL can contaminate large bodies of work completely unrelated to community projects (mostly v3 I take issue with). The state of Steam game compatibility is a demonstration of the conflicting use-cases hobbling a platforms potential. In my opinion LGPL is better for libraries as if you modify lib source it obligates community participation, but doesn't force your entire project into public view when a linker touches the wrong GPL lib. We can disagree, and from each perspective believe we are correct. I'll stick with Apache 2.0, as its better suited for my projects. Enhance your calm. =)

bitL 4y ago

The whole point of GPL is that nobody gets to ride free without contributing sources back to community. Of course companies prefer Apache or similar licenses. But then you end up with Amazon taking over products they didn't develop, never paid a cent to original developers and squeezed all fiscal potential out of the product, killing off the original.

Joel_Mckay 4y ago
Actually, if you can make money from my old code it makes me happy. You are correct in that Bezos does little for the community, and AWS tends to repackage community projects. Yet, most firms do put in many paid hours on kernel development etc. Have a wonderful day =)
- funnymony 4y ago
  > Yet, most firms do put in many paid hours on kernel development etc. Linux kernel uses GPL.
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    Indeed, but my point was the license is not always appropriate for some businesses who still wish to participate in FOSS. Have a great day =)
pabs3 4y ago
> contributing sources back to community Nothing in the GPL requires this, only distributing sources down to your users, who may or may not then redistribute the sources back upstream.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  See the post on the LGPL static-linking issue for porting, and why the wxWidget library license had to create an exception. The project contamination happens even with the LGPL. The subject was contaminating licenses, and why they are not appropriate in some situations. Cheers =)
maxhille 4y ago
I offer you a different perspective: GPL (ie. Copyleft) guarantees "open source" for _users_ of the software Apache (ie. permissive) gives source code to _developers_.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  Apache gives the source code to everyone, and a choice to the receiver. One may be surprised by having faith in peoples goodwill. =)

UncleEntity 4y ago

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Most of my code, being I usually just make python wrappers around C/C++ libraries I want to play with, retains whatever license the original library uses. That’s the license they want, that’s the license I follow. The rare occasion I actually put up original code on GitHub (not really sure I’ve ever done that though, I have a bad yak shaving addiction…would have to check so “theoretically”) I just use a BSD license because I don’t care — some jurisdictions require a license, that the most free one and I’d be happy if someone used my code for whatever.

Joel_Mckay 4y ago
"The Dude Abides"... that film was epic. =) I also like the LGPL or wxWidgets licenses, as it encourages professional linux application development/ports. (Qt5 was an example of doing things wrong in my opinion.) I agree it is a personal choice, and I like giving people more freedom to build. The punitive culture around GPLv3 is especially unsavory. =)
- vore 4y ago
  Some people like being nice and that's great! However, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in authors who put their blood and sweat into the software they write and expecting some kind of concession for it. If that's not what you want to do, then that's your choice. But flippantly characterizing authors who really only want the source code to be made public as "punitive" and "especially unsavory" really rubs me the wrong way when they're basically giving away their labor for free – it's downright altruistic compared to the unsavory, punitive measures many corporate entities would rather take.
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    "punitive" = karma -8 QED I never inferred other people should choose a specific license, but rather stated the fact GPL can contaminate large bodies of work completely unrelated to community projects (mostly v3 I take issue with). The state of Steam game compatibility is a demonstration of the conflicting use-cases hobbling a platforms potential. In my opinion LGPL is better for libraries as if you modify lib source it obligates community participation, but doesn't force your entire project into public view when a linker touches the wrong GPL lib. We can disagree, and from each perspective believe we are correct. I'll stick with Apache 2.0, as its better suited for my projects. Enhance your calm. =)