2 ms·

So what if there's an uproar? Other license writers could also want to be treated specially. This is just about a general filter, into "proprietary", "do whate

So what if there's an uproar? Other license writers could also want to be treated specially. This is just about a general filter, into "proprietary", "do whatever you want to", and "restrictive" open source licenses; for developers when they choose which projects on GitHub might be a good fit for their needs. If you read the GPL it puts a lot of restrictions on what you can do as a developer. So do other licenses (for example licenses that allow you to use the source in open source projects but require some form of payment when used for commercial products).

phillmv 15y ago
You do understand how there are people who would disagree with your characterization, and thus the more neutral term 'copyleft' is the most… let's call it politically-safe term to use. Let's not even touch lumping the copyleft licenses with non-commercial-only licenses. The gradation of rights and privileges goes farther than "Public Domain, Sort of Public Domain, Restrictive". The best way is to just have a dropdown that lists the name of the license.
pygy_ 15y ago
> So what if there's an uproar? It would be boneheaded from a PR stand point, and it is insulting towards the GPL. > Other license writers could also want to be treated specially. You seem to have a serious gripe with the GPL. The GPL (its unnamed ancestor, to be pedantic) is the mother of open source licenses. It enables Freedom, with a capital "f" for its users, at the expense of obligations for people who distribute binaries. Liberal licenses turn the situation around. Labeling the GPL, but not liberal licenses as restrictive is heavily biased, and simply does not reflect reality (since liberal licenses put implicit restrictions on binaries recipients). I speak as a license author, BTW: https://github.com/pygy/The-Romantic-WTF-Public-License https://github.com/pygy/The-Romantic-WTF-Public-License
- gte910h 15y ago
  I'd love to release source, and USE gpl software, and even make a unsigned binary available that if you could hack your own hardware to run, you could. But even if I did, the GPL would prevent me from releasing said software using GPLed libraries, as the actual binary they get has to be trivially copyable. That's crap. That's restrictive. Why can't I supply you with an alternative binary on a website just like I can with the source? Restrictive isn't hate. It's a description. GPL licensed code is useless code to people who develop for top tier gaming platforms other than the PC.
  - pygy_ 15y ago
    > I'd love to release source, and USE gpl software, and even make a unsigned binary available that if you could hack your own hardware to run, you could. But even if I did, the GPL would prevent me from releasing said software using GPLed libraries, as the actual binary they get has to be trivially copyable. That's crap. That's restrictive. Why can't I supply you with an alternative binary on a website just like I can with the source? I'm afraid I don't understand your point... You can distribute GPLed software as binaries, but you must provide the source on request. Edit: Perhaps you mean that you want to release your source code under another license? > Restrictive isn't hate. It's a description. My point is that all licenses are restrictive in a way or another. Even WTF-type licenses or the public domain have implicit restrictions. Singling out the GPL as restrictive is insulting, because its restrictions are designed to enable the freedom for people to check the source code for vulnerabilities or user hostile features (how many backdoors for the US govt. are there in Windows?). > GPL licensed code is useless code to people who develop for top tier gaming platforms other than the PC. ... because of restrictions imposed by the SDK user agreement.
    - gte910h 15y ago
      Section 6 of GPLv2 says: > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein. This is the issue: You HAVE to put Fairplay on the programs (aka, drm, aka, Further Restrictions). It is not Apple's licensing agreement, but instead the uniform Fairplay system on the device. This is the same issue on Nintendo, Sony, and Xbox (although some platforms have source provided libraries which likely would have to be GPLed as well, and you can't under NDAs, the uniform DRM makes GPL2 incompatable with those platforms). GPL3 has changed this area, which I take to be admission of the flaw there. Then again, GPL 3 added a ton of stuff people disliked as well, so it's adoption is less than full. You can meander back and forth that many licenses are restrictive or not, but the GPL is designed to force certain actions from users of the code. That's fine that they release their code that way, but the fact they're trying to do more then get attribution and not get sued with the license, or even get fixes back for their own parts of the code, means people should be warned about this.
kl4m 15y ago
It has no restrictions for developers, only for redistributors.

phillmv 15y ago

You do understand how there are people who would disagree with your characterization, and thus the more neutral term 'copyleft' is the most… let's call it politically-safe term to use. Let's not even touch lumping the copyleft licenses with non-commercial-only licenses. The gradation of rights and privileges goes farther than "Public Domain, Sort of Public Domain, Restrictive". The best way is to just have a dropdown that lists the name of the license.

pygy_ 15y ago

> So what if there's an uproar? It would be boneheaded from a PR stand point, and it is insulting towards the GPL. > Other license writers could also want to be treated specially. You seem to have a serious gripe with the GPL. The GPL (its unnamed ancestor, to be pedantic) is the mother of open source licenses. It enables Freedom, with a capital "f" for its users, at the expense of obligations for people who distribute binaries. Liberal licenses turn the situation around. Labeling the GPL, but not liberal licenses as restrictive is heavily biased, and simply does not reflect reality (since liberal licenses put implicit restrictions on binaries recipients). I speak as a license author, BTW: https://github.com/pygy/The-Romantic-WTF-Public-License https://github.com/pygy/The-Romantic-WTF-Public-License

gte910h 15y ago
I'd love to release source, and USE gpl software, and even make a unsigned binary available that if you could hack your own hardware to run, you could. But even if I did, the GPL would prevent me from releasing said software using GPLed libraries, as the actual binary they get has to be trivially copyable. That's crap. That's restrictive. Why can't I supply you with an alternative binary on a website just like I can with the source? Restrictive isn't hate. It's a description. GPL licensed code is useless code to people who develop for top tier gaming platforms other than the PC.
- pygy_ 15y ago
  > I'd love to release source, and USE gpl software, and even make a unsigned binary available that if you could hack your own hardware to run, you could. But even if I did, the GPL would prevent me from releasing said software using GPLed libraries, as the actual binary they get has to be trivially copyable. That's crap. That's restrictive. Why can't I supply you with an alternative binary on a website just like I can with the source? I'm afraid I don't understand your point... You can distribute GPLed software as binaries, but you must provide the source on request. Edit: Perhaps you mean that you want to release your source code under another license? > Restrictive isn't hate. It's a description. My point is that all licenses are restrictive in a way or another. Even WTF-type licenses or the public domain have implicit restrictions. Singling out the GPL as restrictive is insulting, because its restrictions are designed to enable the freedom for people to check the source code for vulnerabilities or user hostile features (how many backdoors for the US govt. are there in Windows?). > GPL licensed code is useless code to people who develop for top tier gaming platforms other than the PC. ... because of restrictions imposed by the SDK user agreement.
  - gte910h 15y ago
    Section 6 of GPLv2 says: > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein. This is the issue: You HAVE to put Fairplay on the programs (aka, drm, aka, Further Restrictions). It is not Apple's licensing agreement, but instead the uniform Fairplay system on the device. This is the same issue on Nintendo, Sony, and Xbox (although some platforms have source provided libraries which likely would have to be GPLed as well, and you can't under NDAs, the uniform DRM makes GPL2 incompatable with those platforms). GPL3 has changed this area, which I take to be admission of the flaw there. Then again, GPL 3 added a ton of stuff people disliked as well, so it's adoption is less than full. You can meander back and forth that many licenses are restrictive or not, but the GPL is designed to force certain actions from users of the code. That's fine that they release their code that way, but the fact they're trying to do more then get attribution and not get sued with the license, or even get fixes back for their own parts of the code, means people should be warned about this.

kl4m 15y ago

It has no restrictions for developers, only for redistributors.