3 ms·

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

by 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.
dfox 15y ago
GPL actually does not care about binaries, it only stipulates that if you are distributing binaries you have to distribute matching GPL licensed source code with it. The fact that it implies that you cannot disallow users to produce and distribute additional copies is the whole point of GPL.
- gte910h 15y ago
  GPL 2 does. Look at my response to the sister post to yours.

by gte910h 15y ago

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.

dfox 15y ago

GPL actually does not care about binaries, it only stipulates that if you are distributing binaries you have to distribute matching GPL licensed source code with it. The fact that it implies that you cannot disallow users to produce and distribute additional copies is the whole point of GPL.

gte910h 15y ago
GPL 2 does. Look at my response to the sister post to yours.