10 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- roarcher 4y ago
  Perhaps I could have phrased things better--it doesn't directly ask for more but it does create additional burdens. It makes my downstream much smaller, which results in fewer contributions back to my project. It also just isn't something I want to impose on downstream developers--I want people to use my code, and if they make some money, good for them. It's not like they took anything out of my pocket by doing so. Unfortunately there's a class of entitled moralists who think this is the wrong attitude for me to have, and that I should only distribute code if I pledge to enforce their idea of "freedom" regarding its use.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    >> Unfortunately there's a class of entitled moralists who think this is the wrong attitude for me to have, and that I should only distribute code if I pledge to enforce their idea of "freedom" regarding its use. I think that's a bit harsh. If you think the opposite - that MIT/BSD licenses should be preferred over Copyleft - then you should look in a mirror when saying that. Fortunately I suspect it's just your own preference and that's great. My opinion is that MIT licensed code is appropriate for some cases but I prefer GPLv3 as a default. I'm rather angry at other licenses (MPL and Apache in particular) for existing. Maybe they bring some nuance that I don't understand yet, but their existence creates more options and concern over license compatibility. I think BSD/MIT or GPL/LGPL should be it, the rest IMHO are just fragmentation.
    - roarcher 4y ago
      It is my personal preference. I couldn't care less how others license their own code. My issue is with people like those who came into this thread to complain about the license of a project they've contributed nothing to, and paint anyone who disagrees as a paid shill. If they want a rust-based copyleft coreutils, nobody is stopping them from building it.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> what's their incentive to use it? It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving. apparently the notion of Tivoization was lost in a very short period of time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization When I license something under GPL I'm not asking people to give more, I'm forcing them to not take without giving back. They are free to use my software however they want and to modify it however they want, unless they want to redistribute it. Plain and simple. What's so hard about it?
B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago
> Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple) it's the exact opposite. Apart from the wording, which sounds dismissing for no reason, Stallman has no disciples, people who describe them like that usually have some agenda that does not respect other people's freedoms, since we know discipline is hard, GPL forces people (corporations mostly) to stay away if the just want to free-ride on voluntary work. Want to use GPL code? No problem! it's yours, no strings attached, there are only 2 things you can't do: put it under a different license, redistribute it without incorporating your changes as GPL. Which is completely fine morally and ethically, if you come to my house and are my guest for free and I only ask you to not rent the property for money and if you do to share the money with me, would you think I'm appealing to your sense of morality or that I am being fair? Compare it to, let's say, any other proprietary license where, for example, Oracle doesn't allow you to run the software you have bough on different hardware configurations than the one you bought the license for and try to establish which one gives you more freedom. There's also, OTOH, a popular trope that says "I license it <whatever free license not GPL> because I have no problem with corporations using it and I can brag about being the author" Well, that's a pipe dream, the most delusional there is. Take this as an example among so many that it's really heart shattering: https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1469441487175880711 https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1469441487175880711 An hypothetical discussion would go like this - coder: I wrote this code, hope you like it, it's free to use - megacorp: you mean I have to pay zero $? - coder: I mean it's free as in freedom! - megacorp: can you speak $ please? is it zero or not? - coder: well, yes, but that's not the p... - megacorp: then ZERO it is and I will also blame you for any bug or if you do not add the features I need - coder: but that's not fair... - megacorp: does the license prohibit it? - coder: well... no - megacorp: then unfair it is! how THIS (which is far from rare or no heard of outcome) incentivize people to keep on coding for free is the real mystery to me! not that the GPL asks people to follow standard human decency and respect for other people hard work. That's completely understandable to me!
- roarcher 4y ago
  You're confused. I'm not talking about using your GPL code in my project. I'm talking about why I choose not to license my own project as GPL. Edit: Nice ninja edit. No, I don't use non-copyleft licenses for bragging rights. What is it with GPL ideologues in this thread and ascribing ulterior motives to anyone who disagrees with them? Here's why I don't use copyleft: because I don't give a shit who uses my code or for what. It's really that simple. I guess I don't have enough petty envy in me to care if, god forbid, somebody else makes a buck off my code. And so what if some corporation blames me for bugs? I can tell them to fix it themselves or pound sand. That's the beauty of requiring nothing from them in return. They have no leg to stand on when making demands of me.

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.
roarcher 4y ago
Perhaps I could have phrased things better--it doesn't directly ask for more but it does create additional burdens. It makes my downstream much smaller, which results in fewer contributions back to my project. It also just isn't something I want to impose on downstream developers--I want people to use my code, and if they make some money, good for them. It's not like they took anything out of my pocket by doing so. Unfortunately there's a class of entitled moralists who think this is the wrong attitude for me to have, and that I should only distribute code if I pledge to enforce their idea of "freedom" regarding its use.
- phkahler 4y ago
  >> Unfortunately there's a class of entitled moralists who think this is the wrong attitude for me to have, and that I should only distribute code if I pledge to enforce their idea of "freedom" regarding its use. I think that's a bit harsh. If you think the opposite - that MIT/BSD licenses should be preferred over Copyleft - then you should look in a mirror when saying that. Fortunately I suspect it's just your own preference and that's great. My opinion is that MIT licensed code is appropriate for some cases but I prefer GPLv3 as a default. I'm rather angry at other licenses (MPL and Apache in particular) for existing. Maybe they bring some nuance that I don't understand yet, but their existence creates more options and concern over license compatibility. I think BSD/MIT or GPL/LGPL should be it, the rest IMHO are just fragmentation.
  - roarcher 4y ago
    It is my personal preference. I couldn't care less how others license their own code. My issue is with people like those who came into this thread to complain about the license of a project they've contributed nothing to, and paint anyone who disagrees as a paid shill. If they want a rust-based copyleft coreutils, nobody is stopping them from building it.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> what's their incentive to use it? It's simply demanding more from those who are already giving. apparently the notion of Tivoization was lost in a very short period of time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization When I license something under GPL I'm not asking people to give more, I'm forcing them to not take without giving back. They are free to use my software however they want and to modify it however they want, unless they want to redistribute it. Plain and simple. What's so hard about it?

B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago

> Other than an appeal to their sense of morality (which only works if they happen to be a Stallman disciple) it's the exact opposite. Apart from the wording, which sounds dismissing for no reason, Stallman has no disciples, people who describe them like that usually have some agenda that does not respect other people's freedoms, since we know discipline is hard, GPL forces people (corporations mostly) to stay away if the just want to free-ride on voluntary work. Want to use GPL code? No problem! it's yours, no strings attached, there are only 2 things you can't do: put it under a different license, redistribute it without incorporating your changes as GPL. Which is completely fine morally and ethically, if you come to my house and are my guest for free and I only ask you to not rent the property for money and if you do to share the money with me, would you think I'm appealing to your sense of morality or that I am being fair? Compare it to, let's say, any other proprietary license where, for example, Oracle doesn't allow you to run the software you have bough on different hardware configurations than the one you bought the license for and try to establish which one gives you more freedom. There's also, OTOH, a popular trope that says "I license it <whatever free license not GPL> because I have no problem with corporations using it and I can brag about being the author" Well, that's a pipe dream, the most delusional there is. Take this as an example among so many that it's really heart shattering: https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1469441487175880711 https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1469441487175880711 An hypothetical discussion would go like this - coder: I wrote this code, hope you like it, it's free to use - megacorp: you mean I have to pay zero $? - coder: I mean it's free as in freedom! - megacorp: can you speak $ please? is it zero or not? - coder: well, yes, but that's not the p... - megacorp: then ZERO it is and I will also blame you for any bug or if you do not add the features I need - coder: but that's not fair... - megacorp: does the license prohibit it? - coder: well... no - megacorp: then unfair it is! how THIS (which is far from rare or no heard of outcome) incentivize people to keep on coding for free is the real mystery to me! not that the GPL asks people to follow standard human decency and respect for other people hard work. That's completely understandable to me!

roarcher 4y ago
You're confused. I'm not talking about using your GPL code in my project. I'm talking about why I choose not to license my own project as GPL. Edit: Nice ninja edit. No, I don't use non-copyleft licenses for bragging rights. What is it with GPL ideologues in this thread and ascribing ulterior motives to anyone who disagrees with them? Here's why I don't use copyleft: because I don't give a shit who uses my code or for what. It's really that simple. I guess I don't have enough petty envy in me to care if, god forbid, somebody else makes a buck off my code. And so what if some corporation blames me for bugs? I can tell them to fix it themselves or pound sand. That's the beauty of requiring nothing from them in return. They have no leg to stand on when making demands of me.