5 ms·

Open Sourcers Drop Software Religion for Common Sense

19 points by revorad 15y ago

vy8vWJlco 15y ago
The "practicality" argument doesn't hold water with me: none of it matters without freedom. If you care about code, the GPL gives you freedom by requiring that people give back in the manner they take: with code. It is only necessary because people weren't giving back. I can understand that someone might want to shirk the quid-pro-quo responsibilities of the GPL, but I won't be paying for that kind of anti-social product.
- nikcub 15y ago
  "freedom by requiring" < see the contradiction? true freedom has no requirements or demands.
  - vy8vWJlco 15y ago
    I do, but I care about CODE. Without code, I didn't GET freedom. :)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikegerwitz 15y ago
    The free software movement aims to protect the freedom of the users, not developers (although the user could be a developer). Developers are in a position to control their users unfairly, so providing them the freedom under a permissive license does nothing but to further endanger the freedom of the user. This is an important distinction. Those who focus on the freedom of other developers miss the point of the free software movement. Consider an individual looking to rob a bank with a pistol (as opposed to robbing a user's freedom with their own software). Before the robbery, they notice a permissive amory across the street. Your permissively licensed software is that armory. You are empowering that individual to blow a hole through the bank rather than hold someone at gunpoint. Your software, as great as it is, can also be used to lure in users for exploitation. Nothing like a heavily armed robber with candy!
  - kbolino 15y ago
    True freedom also doesn't exist. The mere act of publishing something carries with it an implicit claim of copyright. Thus, the GPL substitutes one set of restrictions for another.
- crusso 15y ago
  It's the old "you can catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar". The GPL is the strongest vinegar to businesses that may not mind participating in open source, but don't want to have their business assets dependent upon something so restrictive. As a developer you have a trade-off decision to make: Choose the license that restricts the use of your creation in hopes that it forces others to share, or choose a license that may end up being used for private commercial reasons - but will likely be more widely adopted because it's less restrictive. The beauty of the whole system in my mind is that each developer is free to make his own choice.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    This is why I use the MPL.
  - vy8vWJlco 15y ago
    Nothing wrong with choice. I think it's important that people treat me fairly. That's practicality, IMHO.
    - crusso 15y ago
      I guess. That's kind of the decision that a lot of console or heavy copy protection game producers make: We want to get paid for every copy of our game that is played. Then a lot of no copy protection PC game producers make a different decision: We want as many people as possible to play our game. Some will pirate it and not pay us. We hope that many more will do the right thing and pay for it if they like it.
      - vy8vWJlco 15y ago
        Yep. Luckily the sky is rising! :) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120129/17272817580/sky-is-rising-entertainment-industry-is-large-growing-not-shrinking.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120129/17272817580/sky-is...
captainsinclair 15y ago
This is an unfortunate pan of GPL and a clearly business-sided discussion of licensing. Developers use GPL to keep their work in the open and encourages everyone working on a project to share their work. On the other hand, "permissive" licenses are well received by businesses because the work produced under BSD-like licenses are perceived as "free labor". So here's the rub. Businesses want free labor, but they want to be paid by their customers. Is that capitalism or socialism?
- crusso 15y ago
  It's Capitalism if the labor isn't forced. Capitalism allows for citizens to willingly participate in any sort of arrangement. Sharing is just another form or voluntary participation in the system. Socialism uses the monopolistic threat of violence and incarceration to force arrangements predetermined by the State. See the difference?
  - turbulence 15y ago
    The McCarthyism is strong with this one.
turbulence 15y ago
sigh... there goes the GPL hate again.
nikcub 15y ago
even more pronounced when you look at web software. look at the most watched projects on Github and play spot the GPL license: https://github.com/popular/watched https://github.com/popular/watched I couldn't count a single project. I have never used the GPL in any software I write because I want anybody to be able to use my software and contributions. Google, Microsoft, Apple (who are actively purging what remains of GPL code) et al will not adapt your project for bundling or distribution or use if it is GPL. I think most developers are more interested in having users of their software than attempting to shoehorn them into some ideology, which is reflected in the license usage stats you see. to add to that, the FSF completely screwed up v3 which likely scared away anybody who was on the fence about which way to go (it was also more to do with the anti-commercial rhetoric around the changes as it had to do with the changes themselves)
- vy8vWJlco 15y ago
  jQuery Diaspora Linux
  - nikcub 15y ago
    jQuery is also MIT licensed, which is why Microsoft was able to bundle it. large parts of Diaspora are also dual-licensed (not sure what the breakdown is). I am still going through the list and haven't found a single GPL-only licensed project
    - reitzensteinm 15y ago
      What about Linux? That said, it might be the exception that proves the rule!
    - bitdiddle 15y ago
      how about Git itself?
      - nikcub 15y ago
        focused on internet and webapp software and the trend there, which is overwhelmingly tilted towards the permissive licenses. much more than the 50/50 split suggested in the OP. so the Q is why is the GPL getting so little adoption amongst web developers.
scj 15y ago
The article mentions the drop since June 2008... AKA, a year after the GPLv3 came out. But sadly, not a mention of the controversy of the new version was made (directly). Some interesting points about the change in focus were made, but I think that v3 played a large part.
tptacek 15y ago
Ironically, Sleepycat couldn't have executed without the GPL; it's a fundamental part of their business model, which relies on dual licensing. There's more to the GPL than "religion". When you release code under BSD, MIT, or Apache, you give up all control of it. Anyone is free to commercialize it without adding any value. The better marketing & sales team can and will beat the origin of the software in the market. If you're not sure whether you might someday want to make money from your code, GPL is the more pragmatic choice. You can always relicense BSD later --- but BSD, once picked, is forever.
- skrebbel 15y ago
  That. GPL is excellent for a "take it and contribute back, or pay my next holiday - either are fine by me!". It's a very fair deal. I'm not saying everybody should go GPL, I'm just saying it's great for many purposes. I came the other way from the open source zealots. I used to scream "viral effect!" whenever something was GPL, thought it was bad, bad, bad. Nowadays, when something is dual licensed GPL and commercial, I tend to become a happy customer. Typically, the long-term prospects are lot better than with BSD software slammed on github with a "here you go" note attached. No evidence, btw, just a feeling.
- nikcub 15y ago
  The way this has come about with relation to web and internet software is that the actual applications being built are closed source but a lot of the libraries and commodity pieces of software are being open sourced with permissive licenses. for eg. Twitter, Google, Facebook etc. produces and consumer a lot of open source software but their core products are still close source. You can segment out portions of your software stack and release them for free while still retaining a competitive advantage with your core application. This isn't an all-or-nothing decision and this hybrid approach is the most common. I think Twitter is a good example. They both built and scaled up using open source and also contributed their own open source software, which has been improved upon by others and in-turn benefited Twitter. It didn't require a license where contribution was essential and nor did it require giving up any competitive advantage (i'd argue it solidified their position).
  - 15y ago
rwmj 15y ago
This was fairly comprehensively debunked in a talk at FOSDEM 2012: http://fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/is_copyleft_being_framed http://fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/is_copyleft_being_fram... http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/03/03/142229/gpl-copyleft-on-the-rise http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/03/03/142229/gpl-copyleft... Black Duck Software don't publish their methodology, whereas John Sullivan does publish his (based on studying the license of Debian packages).
zeruch 15y ago
It's strange to see that now, inasmuch as years ago, when I worked at VA Linux Systems, the general attitude was of philosophical affinity with Open Source pragmatism. It wasn't dogmatic religion. I still think that's sensible and it always seemed to me like many also felt this way...and the GPL was not necessarily a hindrance to that. It was simply one tool among several in the licensing toolbox.
klez 15y ago
I think the article is using wrong examples if they talk about web companies such as Facebook, Google or Twitter. The GPL doesn't force you to free code you don't distribute, for example the code behind your server. This means that, if Facebook did use a GPLed library to, say, show you advertisemnts based on your 'likes', they wouldn't have to GPL their modifications (if any) or the part of proprietary software that used that specific library, let alone their whole infrastructure. So this argument simply doesn't apply to this kind of software. A license that forces you to release your modifications even if you don't distribute your software (again, a web application for example) is the Afero GPL, that is just another beast. TL;DR If you don't distribute or sell software, the GPL is not a concern.

19 points by revorad 15y ago

The "practicality" argument doesn't hold water with me: none of it matters without freedom. If you care about code, the GPL gives you freedom by requiring that people give back in the manner they take: with code. It is only necessary because people weren't giving back. I can understand that someone might want to shirk the quid-pro-quo responsibilities of the GPL, but I won't be paying for that kind of anti-social product.

nikcub 15y ago
"freedom by requiring" < see the contradiction? true freedom has no requirements or demands.
- vy8vWJlco 15y ago
  I do, but I care about CODE. Without code, I didn't GET freedom. :)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- mikegerwitz 15y ago
  The free software movement aims to protect the freedom of the users, not developers (although the user could be a developer). Developers are in a position to control their users unfairly, so providing them the freedom under a permissive license does nothing but to further endanger the freedom of the user. This is an important distinction. Those who focus on the freedom of other developers miss the point of the free software movement. Consider an individual looking to rob a bank with a pistol (as opposed to robbing a user's freedom with their own software). Before the robbery, they notice a permissive amory across the street. Your permissively licensed software is that armory. You are empowering that individual to blow a hole through the bank rather than hold someone at gunpoint. Your software, as great as it is, can also be used to lure in users for exploitation. Nothing like a heavily armed robber with candy!
- kbolino 15y ago
  True freedom also doesn't exist. The mere act of publishing something carries with it an implicit claim of copyright. Thus, the GPL substitutes one set of restrictions for another.
crusso 15y ago
It's the old "you can catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar". The GPL is the strongest vinegar to businesses that may not mind participating in open source, but don't want to have their business assets dependent upon something so restrictive. As a developer you have a trade-off decision to make: Choose the license that restricts the use of your creation in hopes that it forces others to share, or choose a license that may end up being used for private commercial reasons - but will likely be more widely adopted because it's less restrictive. The beauty of the whole system in my mind is that each developer is free to make his own choice.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  This is why I use the MPL.
- vy8vWJlco 15y ago
  Nothing wrong with choice. I think it's important that people treat me fairly. That's practicality, IMHO.
  - crusso 15y ago
    I guess. That's kind of the decision that a lot of console or heavy copy protection game producers make: We want to get paid for every copy of our game that is played. Then a lot of no copy protection PC game producers make a different decision: We want as many people as possible to play our game. Some will pirate it and not pay us. We hope that many more will do the right thing and pay for it if they like it.
    - vy8vWJlco 15y ago
      Yep. Luckily the sky is rising! :) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120129/17272817580/sky-is-rising-entertainment-industry-is-large-growing-not-shrinking.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120129/17272817580/sky-is...

captainsinclair 15y ago

This is an unfortunate pan of GPL and a clearly business-sided discussion of licensing. Developers use GPL to keep their work in the open and encourages everyone working on a project to share their work. On the other hand, "permissive" licenses are well received by businesses because the work produced under BSD-like licenses are perceived as "free labor". So here's the rub. Businesses want free labor, but they want to be paid by their customers. Is that capitalism or socialism?

crusso 15y ago
It's Capitalism if the labor isn't forced. Capitalism allows for citizens to willingly participate in any sort of arrangement. Sharing is just another form or voluntary participation in the system. Socialism uses the monopolistic threat of violence and incarceration to force arrangements predetermined by the State. See the difference?
- turbulence 15y ago
  The McCarthyism is strong with this one.

turbulence 15y ago

sigh... there goes the GPL hate again.

nikcub 15y ago

even more pronounced when you look at web software. look at the most watched projects on Github and play spot the GPL license: https://github.com/popular/watched https://github.com/popular/watched I couldn't count a single project. I have never used the GPL in any software I write because I want anybody to be able to use my software and contributions. Google, Microsoft, Apple (who are actively purging what remains of GPL code) et al will not adapt your project for bundling or distribution or use if it is GPL. I think most developers are more interested in having users of their software than attempting to shoehorn them into some ideology, which is reflected in the license usage stats you see. to add to that, the FSF completely screwed up v3 which likely scared away anybody who was on the fence about which way to go (it was also more to do with the anti-commercial rhetoric around the changes as it had to do with the changes themselves)

vy8vWJlco 15y ago
jQuery Diaspora Linux
- nikcub 15y ago
  jQuery is also MIT licensed, which is why Microsoft was able to bundle it. large parts of Diaspora are also dual-licensed (not sure what the breakdown is). I am still going through the list and haven't found a single GPL-only licensed project
  - reitzensteinm 15y ago
    What about Linux? That said, it might be the exception that proves the rule!
  - bitdiddle 15y ago
    how about Git itself?
    - nikcub 15y ago
      focused on internet and webapp software and the trend there, which is overwhelmingly tilted towards the permissive licenses. much more than the 50/50 split suggested in the OP. so the Q is why is the GPL getting so little adoption amongst web developers.

scj 15y ago

The article mentions the drop since June 2008... AKA, a year after the GPLv3 came out. But sadly, not a mention of the controversy of the new version was made (directly). Some interesting points about the change in focus were made, but I think that v3 played a large part.

tptacek 15y ago

Ironically, Sleepycat couldn't have executed without the GPL; it's a fundamental part of their business model, which relies on dual licensing. There's more to the GPL than "religion". When you release code under BSD, MIT, or Apache, you give up all control of it. Anyone is free to commercialize it without adding any value. The better marketing & sales team can and will beat the origin of the software in the market. If you're not sure whether you might someday want to make money from your code, GPL is the more pragmatic choice. You can always relicense BSD later --- but BSD, once picked, is forever.

skrebbel 15y ago
That. GPL is excellent for a "take it and contribute back, or pay my next holiday - either are fine by me!". It's a very fair deal. I'm not saying everybody should go GPL, I'm just saying it's great for many purposes. I came the other way from the open source zealots. I used to scream "viral effect!" whenever something was GPL, thought it was bad, bad, bad. Nowadays, when something is dual licensed GPL and commercial, I tend to become a happy customer. Typically, the long-term prospects are lot better than with BSD software slammed on github with a "here you go" note attached. No evidence, btw, just a feeling.
nikcub 15y ago
The way this has come about with relation to web and internet software is that the actual applications being built are closed source but a lot of the libraries and commodity pieces of software are being open sourced with permissive licenses. for eg. Twitter, Google, Facebook etc. produces and consumer a lot of open source software but their core products are still close source. You can segment out portions of your software stack and release them for free while still retaining a competitive advantage with your core application. This isn't an all-or-nothing decision and this hybrid approach is the most common. I think Twitter is a good example. They both built and scaled up using open source and also contributed their own open source software, which has been improved upon by others and in-turn benefited Twitter. It didn't require a license where contribution was essential and nor did it require giving up any competitive advantage (i'd argue it solidified their position).
- 15y ago

rwmj 15y ago

This was fairly comprehensively debunked in a talk at FOSDEM 2012: http://fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/is_copyleft_being_framed http://fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/is_copyleft_being_fram... http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/03/03/142229/gpl-copyleft-on-the-rise http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/03/03/142229/gpl-copyleft... Black Duck Software don't publish their methodology, whereas John Sullivan does publish his (based on studying the license of Debian packages).

zeruch 15y ago

It's strange to see that now, inasmuch as years ago, when I worked at VA Linux Systems, the general attitude was of philosophical affinity with Open Source pragmatism. It wasn't dogmatic religion. I still think that's sensible and it always seemed to me like many also felt this way...and the GPL was not necessarily a hindrance to that. It was simply one tool among several in the licensing toolbox.

klez 15y ago

I think the article is using wrong examples if they talk about web companies such as Facebook, Google or Twitter. The GPL doesn't force you to free code you don't distribute, for example the code behind your server. This means that, if Facebook did use a GPLed library to, say, show you advertisemnts based on your 'likes', they wouldn't have to GPL their modifications (if any) or the part of proprietary software that used that specific library, let alone their whole infrastructure. So this argument simply doesn't apply to this kind of software. A license that forces you to release your modifications even if you don't distribute your software (again, a web application for example) is the Afero GPL, that is just another beast. TL;DR If you don't distribute or sell software, the GPL is not a concern.