3 ms·

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 GP

by 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 nkoren 15y ago

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?