5 ms·

> It should be forbidden to forbid. Well, the GPL forbids me from sharing opensource code between work and hobby projects. Especially GPL3. Thats the worst! I

> It should be forbidden to forbid. Well, the GPL forbids me from sharing opensource code between work and hobby projects. Especially GPL3. Thats the worst! I think its remarkable how proponents of GPLed code insist that GPL is about freedom. The GPL is a list of quite restrictive, opinionated, and frankly ambiguous terms that together make me less free to use opensource code to build software, including other opensource code. The fantasy of the GPL hopes that all opensource code was GPLed. And then we would collectively create such a large moat that companies have no choice but to GPL their software too. And it essentially requires every single scrap of opensource software out there uses the GPL, so we can make a monopolistic straight jacket for software. This is a suffocating, and impossible dream because (spoilers): Not all programmers want that! Companies hate it. And opensource programmers like me hate it. I want to work on software that I can use both at work and for fun. So (of course), we make other implementations which aren't GPLed. And now companies can choose if they want the GPL version or the MIT version and - gosh - they choose and invest in the MIT version. MacOS gets built on top of FreeBSD. LLVM gets massive financial support from companies and it becomes excellent. Microsoft has a competing software stack for just about everything and increasingly thats all opensource too. And React. And Chromium. And so on. The moat is broken. GPL has failed in what it was trying to do. The GPL probably needs 90%+ of opensource code out there to be GPL licensed to achieve its mission, and yet according to a random google search[1], its actually used in about 5% of actual projects. Nobody is forced to GPL anything these days. The GPL hasn't put effective pressure on companies to opensource their code for decades. Yet another MIT licensed coreutils implementation changes nothing. [1] https://gustavopinto.medium.com/why-the-mit-license-is-much-more-used-then-gpl-3-2b3fa4271d6b https://gustavopinto.medium.com/why-the-mit-license-is-much-...

saurik 4y ago
The point of GPL is that it preserves the freedoms of users, not developers. You are a developer. The GPL in no uncertain terms takes freedom away from developers so users can have freedom. The only freedom taken is the "freedom" to build closed source software--and presumably support closed and locked down hardware, given the context of this discussion--and then profit off of restricting the freedom of your users. That is the only cost. FWIW, I do appreciate the part of your argument whereby copyleft lost; I just don't agree about why: my best guess is that the lack of GPL3 back when copyleft has power was the critical lack of foresight that has led to companies like Apple and Google to have the 15-20 years required to build empires on top of the work of open source developers and then use the resources they accumulated to rebuild--part by part--the entire stack until they simply didn't need to rely on the open source community anymore.
- roarcher 4y ago
  > The GPL in no uncertain terms takes freedom away from developers so users can have freedom. And therein lies the problem. Open source developers are already doing a bunch of work for free to benefit others, and this license asks them to voluntarily make that work more onerous. Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple), what's their incentive to use it? It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    >> It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving. If you are giving away source code, the GPL doesn't ask you to give more. It does require your downstream to continue giving should they take and extend or modify.
    - josephg 4y ago
      > the GPL doesn't ask you to give more Sure it does. It essentially asks me to give away the ability to profit from my work later or get hired by companies making use of my projects. (Because companies generally refuse to use GPL code at all). It’s hard enough keeping up the motivation to write and maintain an opensource project. If no one uses it and I can’t find a way to make it financially self sustaining on top of that? Bleh no thanks!
      - nextaccountic 4y ago
        > Because companies generally refuse to use GPL code at all You mean, they refuse to use Linux?
        josephg 4y ago
        Most companies refuse to incorporate GPL code / libraries into their projects. The question is what counts as a "derivative work". Using linux as an OS target is fine, but statically linking GPLed libraries is generally not ok. Companies seem happy using GPL software (like linux) only so far as they're allowed to ignore all the share-alike clauses of the GPL.
forgotpwd16 4y ago
>GPL forbids me from sharing opensource code between work and hobby projects You still retain copyright unless signed to transfer it. So if it's your own code you can share. Many projects are even dual-licensed so they can develop in open source manner but also be possible to be sold for commercial use. Now if you just want to take code from someone's else GPL-licensed project without sharing your own, well, unfortunately not possible.

saurik 4y ago

The point of GPL is that it preserves the freedoms of users, not developers. You are a developer. The GPL in no uncertain terms takes freedom away from developers so users can have freedom. The only freedom taken is the "freedom" to build closed source software--and presumably support closed and locked down hardware, given the context of this discussion--and then profit off of restricting the freedom of your users. That is the only cost. FWIW, I do appreciate the part of your argument whereby copyleft lost; I just don't agree about why: my best guess is that the lack of GPL3 back when copyleft has power was the critical lack of foresight that has led to companies like Apple and Google to have the 15-20 years required to build empires on top of the work of open source developers and then use the resources they accumulated to rebuild--part by part--the entire stack until they simply didn't need to rely on the open source community anymore.

roarcher 4y ago
> The GPL in no uncertain terms takes freedom away from developers so users can have freedom. And therein lies the problem. Open source developers are already doing a bunch of work for free to benefit others, and this license asks them to voluntarily make that work more onerous. Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple), what's their incentive to use it? It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving.
- phkahler 4y ago
  >> It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving. If you are giving away source code, the GPL doesn't ask you to give more. It does require your downstream to continue giving should they take and extend or modify.
  - josephg 4y ago
    > the GPL doesn't ask you to give more Sure it does. It essentially asks me to give away the ability to profit from my work later or get hired by companies making use of my projects. (Because companies generally refuse to use GPL code at all). It’s hard enough keeping up the motivation to write and maintain an opensource project. If no one uses it and I can’t find a way to make it financially self sustaining on top of that? Bleh no thanks!
    - nextaccountic 4y ago
      > Because companies generally refuse to use GPL code at all You mean, they refuse to use Linux?
      - josephg 4y ago
        Most companies refuse to incorporate GPL code / libraries into their projects. The question is what counts as a "derivative work". Using linux as an OS target is fine, but statically linking GPLed libraries is generally not ok. Companies seem happy using GPL software (like linux) only so far as they're allowed to ignore all the share-alike clauses of the GPL.

forgotpwd16 4y ago

>GPL forbids me from sharing opensource code between work and hobby projects You still retain copyright unless signed to transfer it. So if it's your own code you can share. Many projects are even dual-licensed so they can develop in open source manner but also be possible to be sold for commercial use. Now if you just want to take code from someone's else GPL-licensed project without sharing your own, well, unfortunately not possible.