5 ms·

>> 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

>> 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.

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.