6 ms·

I can think of a few No copy-left license? Compatibility on Linux with BSD-like operating systems such as FreeBSD, MacOS? To annoy Richard Stallman?

dingi 4y ago
copy-left licenses are better for users.
- jayp1418 4y ago
  But BSD devs have their own argument https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/ https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/
  - dingi 4y ago
    Yeah. Just look what they got from that. Big corps using their work with hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc). At this rate BSDs will be deader than dead within a few years.
    - mnd999 4y ago
      Netcraft confirms it.
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      I don't know about you, but I can't eat code. That said, some people don't care about outside contributions or reuse, so I guess I find the pro-GPL partisanship more than a little misguided. Some people just have different goals, and that doesn't make them better or worse, just different.
      - 0dayz 4y ago
        And a project can't survive without the code. And even then companies are famous for leeching on open source projects, with gpl you at least have some hope of companies leaving you alone or giving back something.
        Shared404 4y ago
        > And even then companies are famous for leeching on open source projects, with gpl you at least have some hope of companies leaving you alone or giving back something. Especially when you make clear the option to dual license and let them use it under a MIT/BSD style license, or something custom, if they pay you an appropriate amount.
        EarlKing 4y ago
        > leeching How is it "leeching" if I deliberately release my source code under a BSD license because I don't care if other people use it or not? It can't be "leeching" if I don't care about their contributions either. The only other scenario that would apply is if I wanted to be paid for my work... in which case neither a BSD-like license, nor the GPL, would be adequate. This is the problem I have with GPL partisans: They refuse to accept that projects can be completed, or that anyone can have any interests other than GPL-compatible ones.
        0dayz 4y ago
        Using a pet project nobody is expected to use as an example is a nil point, I could release a pet project in "WTFPL" or "Fuck You Nobody Is Allowed To Use" license and it wouldn't make a difference , if the concerns are that low for said project. Monetization in FOSS is a systemic issue, with few exceptions, but even then you are far more likely that companies won't want to risk leeching with a GPL like license than a permissive one because of the code sharing requirement, which MIT/BSD at best only incentives as goodwill because of complexity maintaining the project they rely on. I also find it funny you create a strawman, i never stated any adoration of GPL.
      - dingi 4y ago
        And that's the reason for their downfall.
        EarlKing 4y ago
        > downfall What downfall, exactly? If I want to get paid, the GPL doesn't help me with that. If I don't care about outside contributions, the GPL doesn't provide any advantage. Insofar as I have written something that is complete in itself then a BSD license makes perfect sense.
    - nix23 4y ago
      >Yeah. Just look what they got from that. An absolute great OS? >hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc) Sony paid FreeBSD dev's, and the Apple kernel and coreutils are opensource, it's just they have not done anything FreeBSD is interested in, not like for example Netflix with in-kernel tls. >At this rate BSDs will be deader than dead within a few years. Yes yes you said that already 20 years ago, it's probably time to overthink it.
    - throw0101c 4y ago
      > Big corps using their work with hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc). Meanwhile regular commits from / sponsored by Netflix, Dell-EMC Isilon, Juniper, Mellanox, Intel, Amazon and Microsoft (for network drivers), etc.
a2800276 4y ago
> No copy-left license? Are you planning to make proprietary changes to `cat` you are unwilling to share? > Compatibility ... GNU coreutils work fine on all the mentioned plattforms > To annoy Richard Stallman? Not really sure if pettiness would be sufficient motivation for me, but then again, I'm writing this response...
- maxloh 4y ago
  GPL v3 is unsable for embedded/locked hardware, e.g. Macbook, Android phones. That's why Mac OS and Android dodged GPL v3 software.
  - a2800276 4y ago
    How so? If Apple chose to distribute GNU cat, they'd need to release any modifications to cat under the GPL but the license's vitality would not "infect" the rest of OSX. Plenty of GPL software is available on osx.
    - 0dayz 4y ago
      Available and used by Apple themselves are two very different things.
      - a2800276 4y ago
        yes, Apple obviously hates GPL and wants it to die. But I'm confused what you're responding to. The claim was that GPL is unusable on OSX and that's obviously not the case. Whether Apple uses GPL is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
    - maxloh 4y ago
      No. Apple don’t ship anything that is licensed under GPL v3 [0]. In fact, they are still shipping bash 3 (the last version under GPL v2) with Mac OS [1], released 16 years ago. The decision is also affected by the Tivoization clause introduced to GPL v3. > If MacOS included GPLv3 software, Apple wouldn't be able to pre-install it unless they provided all users with signing keys to install their own modified versions of the GPLv3 software on-target. Check out the GPLv3's "User Product" and "Installation Information" sections for more details - they're written in plain English, and are pretty clear. [2] [0]: https://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ https://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20102563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20102563 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21819415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21819415
mtd 4y ago
Could we call it GNU-free/Linux?
- gladiatr72 4y ago
  There's that whole issue of the kernel.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    Although licensed under the GPLv2, the Linux kernel is emphatically not GNU software.
- rascul 4y ago
  Some people call that Alpine.
  - LtWorf 4y ago
    People who don't know alpine does use gnu software.
    - rascul 4y ago
      Not by default. Unless I overlooked something.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
      The only GNU I'm aware of in Alpine is that they use gcc as the main compiler, but the built system is AFAIK GNU-free.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    That's a subset; Alpine is a non-GNU Linux distro, but so are Android and Chimera (https://chimera-linux.org/ https://chimera-linux.org/).

dingi 4y ago

copy-left licenses are better for users.

jayp1418 4y ago
But BSD devs have their own argument https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/ https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/
- dingi 4y ago
  Yeah. Just look what they got from that. Big corps using their work with hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc). At this rate BSDs will be deader than dead within a few years.
  - mnd999 4y ago
    Netcraft confirms it.
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    I don't know about you, but I can't eat code. That said, some people don't care about outside contributions or reuse, so I guess I find the pro-GPL partisanship more than a little misguided. Some people just have different goals, and that doesn't make them better or worse, just different.
    - 0dayz 4y ago
      And a project can't survive without the code. And even then companies are famous for leeching on open source projects, with gpl you at least have some hope of companies leaving you alone or giving back something.
      - Shared404 4y ago
        > And even then companies are famous for leeching on open source projects, with gpl you at least have some hope of companies leaving you alone or giving back something. Especially when you make clear the option to dual license and let them use it under a MIT/BSD style license, or something custom, if they pay you an appropriate amount.
      - EarlKing 4y ago
        > leeching How is it "leeching" if I deliberately release my source code under a BSD license because I don't care if other people use it or not? It can't be "leeching" if I don't care about their contributions either. The only other scenario that would apply is if I wanted to be paid for my work... in which case neither a BSD-like license, nor the GPL, would be adequate. This is the problem I have with GPL partisans: They refuse to accept that projects can be completed, or that anyone can have any interests other than GPL-compatible ones.
        0dayz 4y ago
        Using a pet project nobody is expected to use as an example is a nil point, I could release a pet project in "WTFPL" or "Fuck You Nobody Is Allowed To Use" license and it wouldn't make a difference , if the concerns are that low for said project. Monetization in FOSS is a systemic issue, with few exceptions, but even then you are far more likely that companies won't want to risk leeching with a GPL like license than a permissive one because of the code sharing requirement, which MIT/BSD at best only incentives as goodwill because of complexity maintaining the project they rely on. I also find it funny you create a strawman, i never stated any adoration of GPL.
    - dingi 4y ago
      And that's the reason for their downfall.
      - EarlKing 4y ago
        > downfall What downfall, exactly? If I want to get paid, the GPL doesn't help me with that. If I don't care about outside contributions, the GPL doesn't provide any advantage. Insofar as I have written something that is complete in itself then a BSD license makes perfect sense.
  - nix23 4y ago
    >Yeah. Just look what they got from that. An absolute great OS? >hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc) Sony paid FreeBSD dev's, and the Apple kernel and coreutils are opensource, it's just they have not done anything FreeBSD is interested in, not like for example Netflix with in-kernel tls. >At this rate BSDs will be deader than dead within a few years. Yes yes you said that already 20 years ago, it's probably time to overthink it.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > Big corps using their work with hardly any upstream contribution (Apple, Sony, etc). Meanwhile regular commits from / sponsored by Netflix, Dell-EMC Isilon, Juniper, Mellanox, Intel, Amazon and Microsoft (for network drivers), etc.

a2800276 4y ago

> No copy-left license? Are you planning to make proprietary changes to `cat` you are unwilling to share? > Compatibility ... GNU coreutils work fine on all the mentioned plattforms > To annoy Richard Stallman? Not really sure if pettiness would be sufficient motivation for me, but then again, I'm writing this response...

maxloh 4y ago
GPL v3 is unsable for embedded/locked hardware, e.g. Macbook, Android phones. That's why Mac OS and Android dodged GPL v3 software.
- a2800276 4y ago
  How so? If Apple chose to distribute GNU cat, they'd need to release any modifications to cat under the GPL but the license's vitality would not "infect" the rest of OSX. Plenty of GPL software is available on osx.
  - 0dayz 4y ago
    Available and used by Apple themselves are two very different things.
    - a2800276 4y ago
      yes, Apple obviously hates GPL and wants it to die. But I'm confused what you're responding to. The claim was that GPL is unusable on OSX and that's obviously not the case. Whether Apple uses GPL is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
  - maxloh 4y ago
    No. Apple don’t ship anything that is licensed under GPL v3 [0]. In fact, they are still shipping bash 3 (the last version under GPL v2) with Mac OS [1], released 16 years ago. The decision is also affected by the Tivoization clause introduced to GPL v3. > If MacOS included GPLv3 software, Apple wouldn't be able to pre-install it unless they provided all users with signing keys to install their own modified versions of the GPLv3 software on-target. Check out the GPLv3's "User Product" and "Installation Information" sections for more details - they're written in plain English, and are pretty clear. [2] [0]: https://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ https://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20102563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20102563 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21819415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21819415

mtd 4y ago

Could we call it GNU-free/Linux?

gladiatr72 4y ago
There's that whole issue of the kernel.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  Although licensed under the GPLv2, the Linux kernel is emphatically not GNU software.
rascul 4y ago
Some people call that Alpine.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  People who don't know alpine does use gnu software.
  - rascul 4y ago
    Not by default. Unless I overlooked something.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    The only GNU I'm aware of in Alpine is that they use gcc as the main compiler, but the built system is AFAIK GNU-free.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  That's a subset; Alpine is a non-GNU Linux distro, but so are Android and Chimera (https://chimera-linux.org/ https://chimera-linux.org/).