6 ms·

Interestingly, FOSS means more freedom for the code and for the end user of the code but less freedom for any developer or company who might be reproducing and/

Interestingly, FOSS means more freedom for the code and for the end user of the code but less freedom for any developer or company who might be reproducing and/or hosting the code. The copyleft requirement of GNU licenses restrict what a developer and/or company can do with the code since it forces them to make any derived code public... Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. GPL licenses are a good way to ensnare businesses and then up-sell other software licenses that are more suited for commercial use.

jj999 3y ago
Except the developer of the code is not binded by the copyleft restriction. The developer can take his own code, modify it, and not release any modification. The copyleft requirement restrict what others developers can do with the code. If they don't like it... well, who are they to use the code at all?
- jongjong 3y ago
  Yes agreed, the original developer is not bound since they still retain the copyright. I meant to say 'reproducing' the code, not 'producing'. Only the developers of derived code are restricted.
phoenk 3y ago
> Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. Copyleft only kicks in on redistribution. If you're only testing internally, you don't need to distribute source code. It's only once you distribute that software that you also need to distribute source.
- erhaetherth 3y ago
  What counts as 'distribution'? If the public can connect to my server, do I have to share my server code?
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Depends on the actual license: if it's regular GPL, the answer is no. If it's AGPL, then yes.
    - jj999 3y ago
      Say I use a software with AGPL as license on my server. If my server doesn't output anything AGPL-licensed to its clients, where is the distribution? If there is no distribution, how can the AGPL be enforced?
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        > If my server doesn't output anything AGPL-licensed to its clients, The IP (intellectual property) of the code has no relationship whatsoever with the IP of the content being served by the served. > where is the distribution? You setting up a production server counts as “distributing the service” in AGPL's definition, as AGPL is aimed directly at the SaaS business model. So if you use an AGPL software on your server, you need to provide the source code (including any changes/customization you've made) to your users. BTW this is a common misconception with GPL, nobody forces you to publish the code in public like on github or anything, it could be behind a login form reserved to your customers only. But you need to give them to your customers under the same AGPL license, so if they want to publish it on github themselves, or fork it and make a business out of it, they can.
  - funcDropShadow 3y ago
    No.
  - benj111 3y ago
    Depends on the license. Most don't require it, agpl3 does. (Edit Agpl3)
- tzs 3y ago
  > Copyleft only kicks in on redistribution That used to be true, but AGPL changed that. Now it can kick in if you let others interact with the program on your computer.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    Because that arguably is distribution.
CRConrad 3y ago
> Interestingly, FOSS means more freedom for the code and for the end user of the code but less freedom for any developer or company who might be reproducing and/or hosting the code. Yeah, exactly like a ban on slavery means less freedom for those who would own, beed, and rent out slave labour. Are we supposed to cry at this evil restriction in the freedom of would-be slave owners, boo-hoo, and allow slavery in the name of freedom? > The copyleft requirement of GNU licenses restrict what a developer and/or company can do with the code since it forces them to make any derived code public... Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. It's supposed to restrict that, just like laws are supposed to remove your "freedom" to murder or take slaves. Copyleft exists for the public good, not for commercial projects. It doesn't need to be "desirable" for them. > GPL licenses are a good way to ensnare businesses and then up-sell other software licenses that are more suited for commercial use. Utterly weird take.

jj999 3y ago

Except the developer of the code is not binded by the copyleft restriction. The developer can take his own code, modify it, and not release any modification. The copyleft requirement restrict what others developers can do with the code. If they don't like it... well, who are they to use the code at all?

jongjong 3y ago
Yes agreed, the original developer is not bound since they still retain the copyright. I meant to say 'reproducing' the code, not 'producing'. Only the developers of derived code are restricted.

phoenk 3y ago

> Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. Copyleft only kicks in on redistribution. If you're only testing internally, you don't need to distribute source code. It's only once you distribute that software that you also need to distribute source.

erhaetherth 3y ago
What counts as 'distribution'? If the public can connect to my server, do I have to share my server code?
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Depends on the actual license: if it's regular GPL, the answer is no. If it's AGPL, then yes.
  - jj999 3y ago
    Say I use a software with AGPL as license on my server. If my server doesn't output anything AGPL-licensed to its clients, where is the distribution? If there is no distribution, how can the AGPL be enforced?
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > If my server doesn't output anything AGPL-licensed to its clients, The IP (intellectual property) of the code has no relationship whatsoever with the IP of the content being served by the served. > where is the distribution? You setting up a production server counts as “distributing the service” in AGPL's definition, as AGPL is aimed directly at the SaaS business model. So if you use an AGPL software on your server, you need to provide the source code (including any changes/customization you've made) to your users. BTW this is a common misconception with GPL, nobody forces you to publish the code in public like on github or anything, it could be behind a login form reserved to your customers only. But you need to give them to your customers under the same AGPL license, so if they want to publish it on github themselves, or fork it and make a business out of it, they can.
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  No.
- benj111 3y ago
  Depends on the license. Most don't require it, agpl3 does. (Edit Agpl3)
tzs 3y ago
> Copyleft only kicks in on redistribution That used to be true, but AGPL changed that. Now it can kick in if you let others interact with the program on your computer.
- CRConrad 3y ago
  Because that arguably is distribution.

CRConrad 3y ago

> Interestingly, FOSS means more freedom for the code and for the end user of the code but less freedom for any developer or company who might be reproducing and/or hosting the code. Yeah, exactly like a ban on slavery means less freedom for those who would own, beed, and rent out slave labour. Are we supposed to cry at this evil restriction in the freedom of would-be slave owners, boo-hoo, and allow slavery in the name of freedom? > The copyleft requirement of GNU licenses restrict what a developer and/or company can do with the code since it forces them to make any derived code public... Which is generally undesirable for commercial projects; especially early in their lifecycles when bugs may be present and would be best kept private until the project has been more battle-tested. It's supposed to restrict that, just like laws are supposed to remove your "freedom" to murder or take slaves. Copyleft exists for the public good, not for commercial projects. It doesn't need to be "desirable" for them. > GPL licenses are a good way to ensnare businesses and then up-sell other software licenses that are more suited for commercial use. Utterly weird take.