4 ms·

I'm usually in favour of modified BSD or a similar permissive license; but whenever I read someone who is bitching about the GPL because it is too restrictive (

I'm usually in favour of modified BSD or a similar permissive license; but whenever I read someone who is bitching about the GPL because it is too restrictive (i.e. it forces them to give back as they were given,) I consider only adhering to the GPL in the future.

stephencanon 15y ago
I don't know anyone who complains about GPL forcing them to give back. I know many people who cannot touch GPL3 code because of corporate legal departments' fears (especially with regard to patent clauses) and the absence of test cases, but who frequently contribute back to BSD/Apache/MIT/etc-licensed projects.
- nknight 15y ago
  You haven't been browsing HN long enough. People go off on rants about the GPL restricting their freedom and just generally being evil all the time, has nothing to do with corporate lawyers.
- DHowett 15y ago
  Absence of test cases? Surely this is not a function of the license in use, correct? There can be shitty BSD-licensed swill with no test cases just as easily as there can be that as GPLv3.
  - stephencanon 15y ago
    Legal test cases for the provisions of the license that scare the lawyers. Not software tests.
    - DHowett 15y ago
      Oh. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks :P
- gte910h 15y ago
  Or who code for the Xbox, Sony, Apple or Nintendo platforms, where you can't turn off the DRM on your binary, so can't use GPLed code in your project even if you release the entire project as source/art/whatever.
  - snotrockets 15y ago
    Copyleft tries to discourage closed platforms. As such, you wouldn't expect Copyleft-ists to support those platforms by making developing for them easier/cheaper. They give you the carrot of free code; the stick is the viral nature of the license. Expecting to reap the fruit without giving anything is best left to spoiled brats, not clear thinking developers. In fact, the FSF proudly claim that by keeping some libraries GPLed, instead of LGPLed, they caused some software that used those libraries become FOSS, where it wouldn't be released as such had those libraries been licensed under a more permissive license. PS You can not distribute GPLed software for Nintendo's platforms not just because it would go against the GPL, but also because it would also go against Nintendo's SDK license, which prohibits use of FOSS with their code. See: http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violat...
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - gte910h 15y ago
      You can use most libraries on Nintendo, just not the GPL, because you have to release source code that is nintendo IP. I'm happy you've decided I'm a spoiled brat when I give back fixes, libraries and presentations all the time, and this includes several Linux kernel drivers. Either way, the GPL is intentionally restrictive, in part to thwart these platforms you do not like, so perhaps we should label it so to be forthright and honest with developers so they don't find out thousands of dollars later in some GPL violation suit? Perhaps "Restrictive to persuade others to do software our way"? Or just "Restrictive"? Software was better before source was hidden away. While the LGPL has gone far (and I contend the Linux kernel is far closer to the LGPL than pure GPL), the GPL is still a bit too idealistic to fit the practical nature of some projects.
gte910h 15y ago
It's not possible to distribute GPLed software on all platforms, which it the hitch for many of my customers.
honza 15y ago
> I consider only adhering to the GPL in the future. Exactly my feelings!

stephencanon 15y ago

I don't know anyone who complains about GPL forcing them to give back. I know many people who cannot touch GPL3 code because of corporate legal departments' fears (especially with regard to patent clauses) and the absence of test cases, but who frequently contribute back to BSD/Apache/MIT/etc-licensed projects.

nknight 15y ago
You haven't been browsing HN long enough. People go off on rants about the GPL restricting their freedom and just generally being evil all the time, has nothing to do with corporate lawyers.
DHowett 15y ago
Absence of test cases? Surely this is not a function of the license in use, correct? There can be shitty BSD-licensed swill with no test cases just as easily as there can be that as GPLv3.
- stephencanon 15y ago
  Legal test cases for the provisions of the license that scare the lawyers. Not software tests.
  - DHowett 15y ago
    Oh. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks :P
gte910h 15y ago
Or who code for the Xbox, Sony, Apple or Nintendo platforms, where you can't turn off the DRM on your binary, so can't use GPLed code in your project even if you release the entire project as source/art/whatever.
- snotrockets 15y ago
  Copyleft tries to discourage closed platforms. As such, you wouldn't expect Copyleft-ists to support those platforms by making developing for them easier/cheaper. They give you the carrot of free code; the stick is the viral nature of the license. Expecting to reap the fruit without giving anything is best left to spoiled brats, not clear thinking developers. In fact, the FSF proudly claim that by keeping some libraries GPLed, instead of LGPLed, they caused some software that used those libraries become FOSS, where it wouldn't be released as such had those libraries been licensed under a more permissive license. PS You can not distribute GPLed software for Nintendo's platforms not just because it would go against the GPL, but also because it would also go against Nintendo's SDK license, which prohibits use of FOSS with their code. See: http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violat...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - gte910h 15y ago
    You can use most libraries on Nintendo, just not the GPL, because you have to release source code that is nintendo IP. I'm happy you've decided I'm a spoiled brat when I give back fixes, libraries and presentations all the time, and this includes several Linux kernel drivers. Either way, the GPL is intentionally restrictive, in part to thwart these platforms you do not like, so perhaps we should label it so to be forthright and honest with developers so they don't find out thousands of dollars later in some GPL violation suit? Perhaps "Restrictive to persuade others to do software our way"? Or just "Restrictive"? Software was better before source was hidden away. While the LGPL has gone far (and I contend the Linux kernel is far closer to the LGPL than pure GPL), the GPL is still a bit too idealistic to fit the practical nature of some projects.

gte910h 15y ago

It's not possible to distribute GPLed software on all platforms, which it the hitch for many of my customers.

honza 15y ago

> I consider only adhering to the GPL in the future. Exactly my feelings!