4 ms·

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

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.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  It's really weird that you describe requiring reciprocation as poisoning downstream. Proprietary software also doesn't allow you to just incorporate their code in your proprietary software and distribute it. Nobody described plain jane closed source software as "infectious" even though by any reasonable definition it is vastly more so. Open source software will let you remediate the situation by removing it or open sourcing it without penalty while closed source software if incorporated without following the license will see the owners lawyers crunching your bones to suck out the marrow. If GPL is a cold then proprietary software is ebola. In the overwhelming number of cases the party is selling something other than their software and you are equally free to negotiate a different license with the developer if you have different needs.
  - coreyp_1 3y ago
    I'm not aware of any closed source software that supplies you with source code. (Although, in contract negotiations, it is common for source code to be held in escrow for large $$$ contracts, but that is for a different perpose entirely). Also, suppose that you were to write something that interacted with the binaries of a closed-source system. That would not automatically remove the proprietary nature of your own software, so it is not infectious at all. You may not be able to distribute the proprietary software, but you could sell it as an add-on product without surrendering your IP. That's not ebola. That's a full quarantine and separation that respects the IP of individual owners. GPL is particularly troublesome when it is a dependency of a dependency of a dependency of a dependency. You may not even know that you are using GPL code because the dependency that you are intending to use is not GPL. Again, the words "viral" and "infectious" are used because of this behavior... And this behavior was purposefully designed into the license as part of the political beliefs of the founders. I'm not saying that GPL is useless, but rather that it is significant and potent enough that it is a single factor that will eliminate a project from consideration. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. So much so that I personally avoid GPL as much as possible in my own projects, and I distribute my projects as MIT.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago

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.

michaelmrose 3y ago
It's really weird that you describe requiring reciprocation as poisoning downstream. Proprietary software also doesn't allow you to just incorporate their code in your proprietary software and distribute it. Nobody described plain jane closed source software as "infectious" even though by any reasonable definition it is vastly more so. Open source software will let you remediate the situation by removing it or open sourcing it without penalty while closed source software if incorporated without following the license will see the owners lawyers crunching your bones to suck out the marrow. If GPL is a cold then proprietary software is ebola. In the overwhelming number of cases the party is selling something other than their software and you are equally free to negotiate a different license with the developer if you have different needs.
- coreyp_1 3y ago
  I'm not aware of any closed source software that supplies you with source code. (Although, in contract negotiations, it is common for source code to be held in escrow for large $$$ contracts, but that is for a different perpose entirely). Also, suppose that you were to write something that interacted with the binaries of a closed-source system. That would not automatically remove the proprietary nature of your own software, so it is not infectious at all. You may not be able to distribute the proprietary software, but you could sell it as an add-on product without surrendering your IP. That's not ebola. That's a full quarantine and separation that respects the IP of individual owners. GPL is particularly troublesome when it is a dependency of a dependency of a dependency of a dependency. You may not even know that you are using GPL code because the dependency that you are intending to use is not GPL. Again, the words "viral" and "infectious" are used because of this behavior... And this behavior was purposefully designed into the license as part of the political beliefs of the founders. I'm not saying that GPL is useless, but rather that it is significant and potent enough that it is a single factor that will eliminate a project from consideration. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. So much so that I personally avoid GPL as much as possible in my own projects, and I distribute my projects as MIT.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago