4 ms·

I find it hard to stomach the attitude of this comment. You are sitting on top of a huge stack of free, enterprise-grade software which has sprung up in large

by ak217 15y ago

I find it hard to stomach the attitude of this comment. You are sitting on top of a huge stack of free, enterprise-grade software which has sprung up in large part because of the insistence of some of its authors to use GPL. The authors of a little new library that sits on top of it ask that you open source the portion of your product that you derive from it. Not your whole product, not even the whole client-side part of it - a portion of the client-side javascript that you derived from their library. And your response to this is to whine about it and tell us how they're limiting their user base.

nkoren 15y ago
Actually, if that's what they were asking, then I'd be very happy to comply. But the GPL requires that my ENTIRE product -- anything on the client side -- be GPL'd as well. The MPL requires that anything derived from their library has to remain open-source. That's great. Totally support it. The GPL, as I understand it, requires that anything used with their library must be open-source. That's a problem.
- webjprgm 15y ago
  I don't like GPL. GPL is a religion about how all the software in the world should be free. That's not my religion. Open source is totally different, like the MPL. I am very thankful for all open source projects, but I'm not sure any of them need to be GPL. (could be wrong.)
- ak217 15y ago
  After reading up on this for a bit, I think I see where you're coming from. It does sound like the GPL treats the entire client side of any given website as a single application, and so use of any GPL-licensed code triggers the requirement to release all client-side code. With this in mind, the MPL does sound like the better choice. It's still vastly superior to BSD or MIT, since it requires you and me to release any changes we made to the library itself. What I think this means is that the GPL (or a new successor to it, since Richard Stallman is too much of a curmudgeon) needs to start distinguishing between portions of web applications according to their origin, to enable the various scenarios that are possible when distributing executable code but currently not webapp client-side code.
- zobzu 15y ago
  What I think is "so what". Most of the software you use is probably open source. That's more than you'd code in your lifetime. So, what. GPL let you keep things in house if you don't distribute. Google does that all the time. A lot of their stuff isn't contributed back. And heck, it's a BAD thing, but they CAN do it. Yeah more permission just let companies make more money off free stuff; its only in some rare occasions that they truly contribute back, unless it's GPL and they're forced to use it because they distribute it (although many just go the illegal way) Now if you don't want GPL and no alternative that is free exists, well you know, code it yourself? Or are the people coding for free supposed to pay your lunch too?

by ak217 15y ago

nkoren 15y ago

Actually, if that's what they were asking, then I'd be very happy to comply. But the GPL requires that my ENTIRE product -- anything on the client side -- be GPL'd as well. The MPL requires that anything derived from their library has to remain open-source. That's great. Totally support it. The GPL, as I understand it, requires that anything used with their library must be open-source. That's a problem.

webjprgm 15y ago
I don't like GPL. GPL is a religion about how all the software in the world should be free. That's not my religion. Open source is totally different, like the MPL. I am very thankful for all open source projects, but I'm not sure any of them need to be GPL. (could be wrong.)
ak217 15y ago
After reading up on this for a bit, I think I see where you're coming from. It does sound like the GPL treats the entire client side of any given website as a single application, and so use of any GPL-licensed code triggers the requirement to release all client-side code. With this in mind, the MPL does sound like the better choice. It's still vastly superior to BSD or MIT, since it requires you and me to release any changes we made to the library itself. What I think this means is that the GPL (or a new successor to it, since Richard Stallman is too much of a curmudgeon) needs to start distinguishing between portions of web applications according to their origin, to enable the various scenarios that are possible when distributing executable code but currently not webapp client-side code.
zobzu 15y ago
What I think is "so what". Most of the software you use is probably open source. That's more than you'd code in your lifetime. So, what. GPL let you keep things in house if you don't distribute. Google does that all the time. A lot of their stuff isn't contributed back. And heck, it's a BAD thing, but they CAN do it. Yeah more permission just let companies make more money off free stuff; its only in some rare occasions that they truly contribute back, unless it's GPL and they're forced to use it because they distribute it (although many just go the illegal way) Now if you don't want GPL and no alternative that is free exists, well you know, code it yourself? Or are the people coding for free supposed to pay your lunch too?