2 ms·

The iOS example was just to name one of many limitations of using GPL code. > Enough for whom? Microsoft? No, for developers themselves. Dynamic vs. static

The iOS example was just to name one of many limitations of using GPL code. > Enough for whom? Microsoft? No, for developers themselves. Dynamic vs. static linking mess etc. > ...some people do not have "allow companies to benefit from my work without giving back anything in return" as their top priority. But in reality, that doesn't happen a lot - to name a few on top of my head: Webkit, PostgreSQL, Minix, LaTeX, Mozilla's softwares (to some extent), Apache and MIT's softwares and many other applications (and PHP, Python and Lua if I'm not mistaken). It's like giving others a choice to be a bad guy or a good guy. In many cases, given the choice, people would contribute back to the community.

dalke 15y ago
I know all of these regarding software which is deployed on someone else's hardware (iOS, embedded, etc); I wanted to know why the GPL is a problem for someone doing a web startup, which is the original point you made.
- pooriaazimi 15y ago
  Nowadays most web startups don't do just web clients, they tend to create native clients for each platform. A web startup for sharing photos will fail on iOS if they provide only a web app. And even if you're creating just a web client, AGPL might still bite you.
  - dalke 15y ago
    I call BS. Most web startups don't do web clients. nknight in this thread agrees with me. Do you have any evidence to back your claim, or are you making up this statistic? I specifically pointed out that using AGPL "might be a problem", so your inclusion here looks like it's evading your original comment concerning the GPL and web startups I ask again, what limitations does the GPL license place on a web startup? You linked to an earlier HN discussion. Neither it nor the linked-to page mentions iOS or iPhone development, which seems to be your main concern now. They look like the standard random points that appears in any discussion of BSD v. GPL, so you'll need to point out the real issues. Then again, you said "GPL is not the greatest license, that's why they created LGPL (to remove some of its stupid restrictions)" which is completely wrong. The "Why you shouldn't use the LGPL" document from the FSF says "The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library." Even the title alone should tell you that LGPL is not meant as successor or improvement to the LGPL. This leads me to believe that you don't know the issues and are winging it.
nknight 15y ago
> The iOS example was just to name one of many limitations of using GPL code. And is utterly irrelevant to the question that was asked. > No, for developers themselves. Dynamic vs. static linking mess etc. What mess? The requirements of the LGPL are clear, and in most cases quite trivial to meet. > But in reality, that doesn't happen a lot - to name a few on top of my head: Webkit, PostgreSQL, Minix, LaTeX, Mozilla's softwares (to some extent), Apache and MIT's softwares and many other applications (and PHP, Python and Lua if I'm not mistaken). All you've done is name some projects that happen to use non-GPL licenses in whole or part. You don't think companies take their output and use them in their own products without contributing back? I have to ask, do you actually work in the software industry? Because it's not just common, it's pretty much universal to take liberally-licensed code, use it in a proprietary product, and give nothing back to anyone. Can you come up with companies that do contribute at least something back? Sure, but they're not the majority. > It's like giving others a choice to be a bad guy or a good guy. In many cases, given the choice, people would contribute back to the community. Actually, it's stating that they can use certain code under certain conditions. This, too, is universal, but more often the condition is "give me a bunch of money, don't tell anyone what's in the box, and if you become successful, give me a bunch more money". Somehow, some set of people like yourself have found it in themselves to be offended by the notion that people might want to bargain with something other than currency.
- pooriaazimi 15y ago
  I'm sorry. Maybe the iOS app was irrelevant to his/her point. But I think most web startups would want to create iOS clients too, and that's how GPL might be a limitation to them. > I have to ask, do you actually work in the software industry? No, I'm just a student/programmer. I mean I'm not working in an IT department in a big company, so you've got a point there that I might not be realistic. > All you've done is name some projects that happen to use non-GPL licenses in whole or part. You don't think companies take their output and use them in their own products without contributing back? I named some non-GPL projects that big companies are contributing to them. And I think I missed LLVM and Clang (and the amazing static analyzer) that Apple is contributing to. Google, Apache, Apple Yahoo, ... (even IBM) are all contributing to non-GPL open source projects - not because they have to, but because it's good for their business and they will benefit from that, and as a direct result of that, we (the developers) benefit too. <----- MY MAIN POINT What I'm saying is this: If Webkit was (pure) GPL, do you think Apple would even consider using it in the first place? No, they wouldn't, and they would roll out their own proprietary browser from scratch and the world would be a worse place. If Hadoop was not as liberally-licensed as it is now, do you think Yahoo would contribute to it? No. I'm not offended - All I'm trying to say is that if you tighten up your software license, less people will use it, but they would have to contribute back. If you go with a BSD-style license, much more people will use and incorporate that project (for many reasons, including the fact that you can monetize your application much easier), and even if a small percentage of them contributes back, it's still good. (I'm not a native English speaker, so I can't express what I want to say very well)
diminish 15y ago
iOS example is simply one of the many limitations of iOS itself with regard to freedom/OSS.
frobozz 15y ago
>The iOS example was just to name one of many limitations of using GPL code. Why do you consider this a limitation of GPL, rather than of iOS? > No, for developers themselves. Dynamic vs. static linking mess etc. Can you explain this? It is the nature of closed-source libraries that deny us the freedom to modify them to our own ends or link them into GPL applications.

dalke 15y ago

I know all of these regarding software which is deployed on someone else's hardware (iOS, embedded, etc); I wanted to know why the GPL is a problem for someone doing a web startup, which is the original point you made.

pooriaazimi 15y ago
Nowadays most web startups don't do just web clients, they tend to create native clients for each platform. A web startup for sharing photos will fail on iOS if they provide only a web app. And even if you're creating just a web client, AGPL might still bite you.
- dalke 15y ago
  I call BS. Most web startups don't do web clients. nknight in this thread agrees with me. Do you have any evidence to back your claim, or are you making up this statistic? I specifically pointed out that using AGPL "might be a problem", so your inclusion here looks like it's evading your original comment concerning the GPL and web startups I ask again, what limitations does the GPL license place on a web startup? You linked to an earlier HN discussion. Neither it nor the linked-to page mentions iOS or iPhone development, which seems to be your main concern now. They look like the standard random points that appears in any discussion of BSD v. GPL, so you'll need to point out the real issues. Then again, you said "GPL is not the greatest license, that's why they created LGPL (to remove some of its stupid restrictions)" which is completely wrong. The "Why you shouldn't use the LGPL" document from the FSF says "The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library." Even the title alone should tell you that LGPL is not meant as successor or improvement to the LGPL. This leads me to believe that you don't know the issues and are winging it.

nknight 15y ago

> The iOS example was just to name one of many limitations of using GPL code. And is utterly irrelevant to the question that was asked. > No, for developers themselves. Dynamic vs. static linking mess etc. What mess? The requirements of the LGPL are clear, and in most cases quite trivial to meet. > But in reality, that doesn't happen a lot - to name a few on top of my head: Webkit, PostgreSQL, Minix, LaTeX, Mozilla's softwares (to some extent), Apache and MIT's softwares and many other applications (and PHP, Python and Lua if I'm not mistaken). All you've done is name some projects that happen to use non-GPL licenses in whole or part. You don't think companies take their output and use them in their own products without contributing back? I have to ask, do you actually work in the software industry? Because it's not just common, it's pretty much universal to take liberally-licensed code, use it in a proprietary product, and give nothing back to anyone. Can you come up with companies that do contribute at least something back? Sure, but they're not the majority. > It's like giving others a choice to be a bad guy or a good guy. In many cases, given the choice, people would contribute back to the community. Actually, it's stating that they can use certain code under certain conditions. This, too, is universal, but more often the condition is "give me a bunch of money, don't tell anyone what's in the box, and if you become successful, give me a bunch more money". Somehow, some set of people like yourself have found it in themselves to be offended by the notion that people might want to bargain with something other than currency.

pooriaazimi 15y ago
I'm sorry. Maybe the iOS app was irrelevant to his/her point. But I think most web startups would want to create iOS clients too, and that's how GPL might be a limitation to them. > I have to ask, do you actually work in the software industry? No, I'm just a student/programmer. I mean I'm not working in an IT department in a big company, so you've got a point there that I might not be realistic. > All you've done is name some projects that happen to use non-GPL licenses in whole or part. You don't think companies take their output and use them in their own products without contributing back? I named some non-GPL projects that big companies are contributing to them. And I think I missed LLVM and Clang (and the amazing static analyzer) that Apple is contributing to. Google, Apache, Apple Yahoo, ... (even IBM) are all contributing to non-GPL open source projects - not because they have to, but because it's good for their business and they will benefit from that, and as a direct result of that, we (the developers) benefit too. <----- MY MAIN POINT What I'm saying is this: If Webkit was (pure) GPL, do you think Apple would even consider using it in the first place? No, they wouldn't, and they would roll out their own proprietary browser from scratch and the world would be a worse place. If Hadoop was not as liberally-licensed as it is now, do you think Yahoo would contribute to it? No. I'm not offended - All I'm trying to say is that if you tighten up your software license, less people will use it, but they would have to contribute back. If you go with a BSD-style license, much more people will use and incorporate that project (for many reasons, including the fact that you can monetize your application much easier), and even if a small percentage of them contributes back, it's still good. (I'm not a native English speaker, so I can't express what I want to say very well)

diminish 15y ago

iOS example is simply one of the many limitations of iOS itself with regard to freedom/OSS.

frobozz 15y ago

>The iOS example was just to name one of many limitations of using GPL code. Why do you consider this a limitation of GPL, rather than of iOS? > No, for developers themselves. Dynamic vs. static linking mess etc. Can you explain this? It is the nature of closed-source libraries that deny us the freedom to modify them to our own ends or link them into GPL applications.