3 ms·

Disclaimer: I am a lifelong footpedaling, boot-to-fullscreen emacs apologist. However: I nolonger believe that GPL licensing is free-as-in speech. Especially

by elif 3y ago

Disclaimer: I am a lifelong footpedaling, boot-to-fullscreen emacs apologist. However: I nolonger believe that GPL licensing is free-as-in speech. Especially in an age where stack overflow or GPT code snippets can accidentally cause violations, GPL has become an encumbrance on free software as frustrating OR MORE as the actual copyright/patent law it originally sought to attack. As a developer you have to bite your tongue and that is not free speech. Times have changed and so has the concept of free software, and RMS' ideology is too absolutist to apply today. Copyleft has just become an alternative copyright system whose fee is all your profit.

rhn_mk1 3y ago
How does stack overflow cause violations of the GPL? Is it not possible to clarify the license when posting an answer? As far as I know, it's so far rather unclear whether using machine learning systems cause violations. Care to support the statement with an example?
- elif 3y ago
  "any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License ."
  - rhn_mk1 3y ago
    This reads to me like it requires the entire answer to be published under the GPL. I guess it does cause accidental violations of the GPL, but in the same way as pasting GPL code without attribution. Or pasting MIT code without attribution. From a layman's perspective, the only difference is if the comment mixes GPL and some incompatible code in it. But that would be ridiculous under any license, so I actually don't know what to think about it. Could it be that fair use applies to SO snippets?
c4mpute 3y ago
In that sense, any license that isn't fully public domain or equivalent is a problem. Stackoverflow and GPT could also give you secret but leaked Microsoft, Oracle or NSA code. You'll never know, until that black helicopter lands on your doorstep and a legion of lawyers empty your bank account. Just copy&pasting code from somewhere always was risky and always will be, as long as there is copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and crap like that.
- elif 3y ago
  Yep copyright is an annoying minefield of rules-by-enforcement, you don't know until you are legally served. Maybe I should have made that more clear in my original comment. My point was that copyleft has instead of clearing some of the mines, just littered the field with MORE mines.
globular-toast 3y ago
That's an interesting point, but I think you're jumping the gun by a few decades at least. If Stack Overflow and GPT type stuff eventually makes software copyright essentially non-existent then of course the GPL will be obsolete. But we're not there yet. Not by a long way.
- bombolo 3y ago
  I keep repeating that if it's fair use and doesn't violate license or regurgitate entire blocks of code verbatim… why doesn't microsoft train it on the projects of the paying users and their own?
willismichael 3y ago
Genuine question: What license should I use for a new open source project? I want to develop a new pay-if-you-want software product. I previously developed one with a GPL license that is successful in its niche. The GPL didn't cause me any problems, but if there's a license that better represents "I want to share this with the world, donate if you want" I'm open to suggestions.
- fullspectrumdev 3y ago
  Honestly, I just go with WTFPL. I have precisely zero belief that software licences actually do anything anymore.
- elif 3y ago
  If you don't intend to enforce the terms of GPL against people who borrow parts of your code, it is really not that harmful.. but it would be unnecessarily ambiguous why it would be licenced that way rather than MIT/apache/etc permissible license at that point. Like 'i don't intend to shoot you I just want my pistol loaded and in my hand'
  - bombolo 3y ago
    GPT violates MIT licensed software as well. There is a requirement to carry a copyright notice, which GPT/copilot ignore. So you're not violating only GPL licensed code, but also MIT. You need something that gives more permissions.
- andruby 3y ago
  MIT license with a donation message. I like your phrasing of "pay-if-you-want" more than "donate". The former anchors you to think about the fact that this could have been paid software. ie: What would have been an acceptable price if you had to pay for this.
- DicIfTEx 3y ago
  CC0[0] would be the obvious one; spicier and less legalese alternatives that nonetheless amount to about the same thing include the Unlicense[1] and the Do What the Fuck You Want Public License[2] [0] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc... [1] https://unlicense.org/ https://unlicense.org/ with some philosophical discussion at https://ar.to/2010/01/set-your-code-free https://ar.to/2010/01/set-your-code-free [2] http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/
raxxorraxor 3y ago
I think this is an effect of its success. Without the FSF we would maybe have software patents and far less open code that we have today. This is essential to supply a developer pipeline. Some say Stallman is a bad face to stage a revolution, and that might be correct. But this isn't some anarchist uprising and that disregards the achievements many already seem to take for granted. Sure, GPL to a large degree does mirror the strictness of copyright law. I don't believe that it hinders anything to be honest.

by elif 3y ago

rhn_mk1 3y ago

How does stack overflow cause violations of the GPL? Is it not possible to clarify the license when posting an answer? As far as I know, it's so far rather unclear whether using machine learning systems cause violations. Care to support the statement with an example?

elif 3y ago
"any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License ."
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  This reads to me like it requires the entire answer to be published under the GPL. I guess it does cause accidental violations of the GPL, but in the same way as pasting GPL code without attribution. Or pasting MIT code without attribution. From a layman's perspective, the only difference is if the comment mixes GPL and some incompatible code in it. But that would be ridiculous under any license, so I actually don't know what to think about it. Could it be that fair use applies to SO snippets?

c4mpute 3y ago

In that sense, any license that isn't fully public domain or equivalent is a problem. Stackoverflow and GPT could also give you secret but leaked Microsoft, Oracle or NSA code. You'll never know, until that black helicopter lands on your doorstep and a legion of lawyers empty your bank account. Just copy&pasting code from somewhere always was risky and always will be, as long as there is copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and crap like that.

elif 3y ago
Yep copyright is an annoying minefield of rules-by-enforcement, you don't know until you are legally served. Maybe I should have made that more clear in my original comment. My point was that copyleft has instead of clearing some of the mines, just littered the field with MORE mines.

globular-toast 3y ago

That's an interesting point, but I think you're jumping the gun by a few decades at least. If Stack Overflow and GPT type stuff eventually makes software copyright essentially non-existent then of course the GPL will be obsolete. But we're not there yet. Not by a long way.

bombolo 3y ago
I keep repeating that if it's fair use and doesn't violate license or regurgitate entire blocks of code verbatim… why doesn't microsoft train it on the projects of the paying users and their own?

willismichael 3y ago

Genuine question: What license should I use for a new open source project? I want to develop a new pay-if-you-want software product. I previously developed one with a GPL license that is successful in its niche. The GPL didn't cause me any problems, but if there's a license that better represents "I want to share this with the world, donate if you want" I'm open to suggestions.

fullspectrumdev 3y ago
Honestly, I just go with WTFPL. I have precisely zero belief that software licences actually do anything anymore.
elif 3y ago
If you don't intend to enforce the terms of GPL against people who borrow parts of your code, it is really not that harmful.. but it would be unnecessarily ambiguous why it would be licenced that way rather than MIT/apache/etc permissible license at that point. Like 'i don't intend to shoot you I just want my pistol loaded and in my hand'
- bombolo 3y ago
  GPT violates MIT licensed software as well. There is a requirement to carry a copyright notice, which GPT/copilot ignore. So you're not violating only GPL licensed code, but also MIT. You need something that gives more permissions.
andruby 3y ago
MIT license with a donation message. I like your phrasing of "pay-if-you-want" more than "donate". The former anchors you to think about the fact that this could have been paid software. ie: What would have been an acceptable price if you had to pay for this.
DicIfTEx 3y ago
CC0[0] would be the obvious one; spicier and less legalese alternatives that nonetheless amount to about the same thing include the Unlicense[1] and the Do What the Fuck You Want Public License[2] [0] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc... [1] https://unlicense.org/ https://unlicense.org/ with some philosophical discussion at https://ar.to/2010/01/set-your-code-free https://ar.to/2010/01/set-your-code-free [2] http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/

raxxorraxor 3y ago

I think this is an effect of its success. Without the FSF we would maybe have software patents and far less open code that we have today. This is essential to supply a developer pipeline. Some say Stallman is a bad face to stage a revolution, and that might be correct. But this isn't some anarchist uprising and that disregards the achievements many already seem to take for granted. Sure, GPL to a large degree does mirror the strictness of copyright law. I don't believe that it hinders anything to be honest.