6 ms·

It would be handy to see the license. It's becoming increasingly more dangerous to use anything in the GPL family for anything but the narrowest of use cases.

It would be handy to see the license. It's becoming increasingly more dangerous to use anything in the GPL family for anything but the narrowest of use cases. It's to the point that, even now, if it's GPL I refuse to incorporate it, even in personal projects. And I'm not against open source... Everything I write is MIT.

musicale 3y ago
What changed to make GPL more "dangerous" - and to whom? I was under the impression that nearly every Linux distro uses GPL code in the kernel and/or userland.
- coreyp_1 3y ago
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryException https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryEx... The GPL carves out exceptions for the use of system libraries. But, as for the "dangerous" part: * I work in an industry in which software patents are required to survive. Personally, I hate software patents, but it is a reality until the law changes. As such, the GPL invalidates patents, making anything GPL completely off limits. That means that I would not have a job, and then there would be fewer competitors in the marketplace, which would make prices rise considerably. Too bad, too, because we would donate back improvements that are general enough to benefit others. Rather, now we just use proprietary solutions wholly because GPL is a minefield for us. * I have personal projects. I write code that I want to use myself as well as allow others to use. I use MIT because GPL discourages that somewhat (the point above). I may want to use my personal projects commercially some day. MIT allows that; GPL makes it impossible. In other words, if I choose GPL today, I have poisoned that code from myself for the rest of my life. In short GPL is not "free" as in freedom, because it comes with strings attached. It's communist in philosophy, but I hesitate to say that because then everybody jumps to some *a priori* conclusion of what they are now convinced that I'm saying, without listening to what I'm actually saying. GPL says, in short, that the software is freely available for public use, but not for private use. (Yes, there are nuances to that, so much so (and so confusing) that most people either just ignore it, or say "IANAL...") It demands that 100% of the work of anyone in the future must be donated back to the collective for free. That is not freedom. Create as much GPL code as you like. I create MIT. You can use mine (and I'm happy for you to!), but I can't use yours because of the restrictions you put on it. We can let the future decide which is more "free".
  - openthc 3y ago
    IIRC, it's not about private use but about distribution. We publish libraries under MIT, since other corporate users would very likely need to distribute those. But the higher-level Apps we publish under GPL, so that downstream is obligated to keep it open-source (but there is no obligation to submit a PR upstream). And there are more than a few companies that use our GPL stuff, internally and don't redistrubute and therefore don't have to make their internal modifications available under GPL -- because there is no distribution happening. I'm not a lawyer but our decision was informed by one who has prior experience in IP, licensing and specifically FOSS-style licenses.
    - coreyp_1 3y ago
      Yes, distribution is the key. Suppose that my company has powerful video editing software that we sell (which is distribution). Consider that it has unique functionality and has taken a decade to develop by a team of developers, all of whom have salaries, insurance, retirement, etc. that need to be paid, otherwise the software would not exist. Proprietary code and profit are more than appropriate in this situation, as I believe that workers should reap the reward of their labor and investment. Now, suppose that a new feature is wanted. There is a project that provides that functionality, but it is licensed GPL. Can I use it? Absolutely not! Because, if I do, then I am obligated to release all of my source code in addition, because it integrates with the GPL code. It is financial suicide for my business to do so (which, btw, is a political preference for many of the GPL proponents). What will I do instead? I will probably just have my developer write our own version, adding in the extra features that we need. Contrast that with the MIT-licensed code. We can use it without fear, and we will probably even submit enhancements back to the project, simply because it makes our lives easier in the future for maintenance. GPL poisons downstream, simple as that. You are correct that there is no obligation to submit a PR upstream, but there is a requirement for my source code to be made available under the same GPL license. GPL is "infectious" (or "viral", take your pick of words). The funny thing is, I believe in freedom with software, but my interpretation of "free" is vastly different than the GPL interpretation of "free". And, as I said, I put my money where my mouth is... almost everything I write (except for my job) is MIT licensed code.
3836293648 3y ago
MIT is against open source. Only copyleft is truly open
adparadox 3y ago
Good suggestion! I now show the license if it's set on the repo.

musicale 3y ago

What changed to make GPL more "dangerous" - and to whom? I was under the impression that nearly every Linux distro uses GPL code in the kernel and/or userland.

coreyp_1 3y ago
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryException https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryEx... The GPL carves out exceptions for the use of system libraries. But, as for the "dangerous" part: * I work in an industry in which software patents are required to survive. Personally, I hate software patents, but it is a reality until the law changes. As such, the GPL invalidates patents, making anything GPL completely off limits. That means that I would not have a job, and then there would be fewer competitors in the marketplace, which would make prices rise considerably. Too bad, too, because we would donate back improvements that are general enough to benefit others. Rather, now we just use proprietary solutions wholly because GPL is a minefield for us. * I have personal projects. I write code that I want to use myself as well as allow others to use. I use MIT because GPL discourages that somewhat (the point above). I may want to use my personal projects commercially some day. MIT allows that; GPL makes it impossible. In other words, if I choose GPL today, I have poisoned that code from myself for the rest of my life. In short GPL is not "free" as in freedom, because it comes with strings attached. It's communist in philosophy, but I hesitate to say that because then everybody jumps to some *a priori* conclusion of what they are now convinced that I'm saying, without listening to what I'm actually saying. GPL says, in short, that the software is freely available for public use, but not for private use. (Yes, there are nuances to that, so much so (and so confusing) that most people either just ignore it, or say "IANAL...") It demands that 100% of the work of anyone in the future must be donated back to the collective for free. That is not freedom. Create as much GPL code as you like. I create MIT. You can use mine (and I'm happy for you to!), but I can't use yours because of the restrictions you put on it. We can let the future decide which is more "free".
- openthc 3y ago
  IIRC, it's not about private use but about distribution. We publish libraries under MIT, since other corporate users would very likely need to distribute those. But the higher-level Apps we publish under GPL, so that downstream is obligated to keep it open-source (but there is no obligation to submit a PR upstream). And there are more than a few companies that use our GPL stuff, internally and don't redistrubute and therefore don't have to make their internal modifications available under GPL -- because there is no distribution happening. I'm not a lawyer but our decision was informed by one who has prior experience in IP, licensing and specifically FOSS-style licenses.
  - coreyp_1 3y ago
    Yes, distribution is the key. Suppose that my company has powerful video editing software that we sell (which is distribution). Consider that it has unique functionality and has taken a decade to develop by a team of developers, all of whom have salaries, insurance, retirement, etc. that need to be paid, otherwise the software would not exist. Proprietary code and profit are more than appropriate in this situation, as I believe that workers should reap the reward of their labor and investment. Now, suppose that a new feature is wanted. There is a project that provides that functionality, but it is licensed GPL. Can I use it? Absolutely not! Because, if I do, then I am obligated to release all of my source code in addition, because it integrates with the GPL code. It is financial suicide for my business to do so (which, btw, is a political preference for many of the GPL proponents). What will I do instead? I will probably just have my developer write our own version, adding in the extra features that we need. Contrast that with the MIT-licensed code. We can use it without fear, and we will probably even submit enhancements back to the project, simply because it makes our lives easier in the future for maintenance. GPL poisons downstream, simple as that. You are correct that there is no obligation to submit a PR upstream, but there is a requirement for my source code to be made available under the same GPL license. GPL is "infectious" (or "viral", take your pick of words). The funny thing is, I believe in freedom with software, but my interpretation of "free" is vastly different than the GPL interpretation of "free". And, as I said, I put my money where my mouth is... almost everything I write (except for my job) is MIT licensed code.

3836293648 3y ago

MIT is against open source. Only copyleft is truly open

adparadox 3y ago

Good suggestion! I now show the license if it's set on the repo.