3 ms·
I'm open to a compelling argument for why the GPL is better than a license that basically says "you can do whatever you want with this." (From the perspective o
by coderdude 14y ago
I'm open to a compelling argument for why the GPL is better than a license that basically says "you can do whatever you want with this." (From the perspective of deterring the locking down of computers by corporations.)
- guelo 14y agoIf it isn't obvious, GPL is an attack against proprietary computers and against the corporations that have been trying repeatedly over decades to bottle-up and monopolize the computer revolution.
- buu700 14y agoIs it surprising that the GPL represents the antithesis of the startup community? No matter how idealistic any large group of young hackers will want to be, fiduciary duty will always trump everything when you play with business. You can love the GPL as much as Stallman himself, but when you're grasping for any edge you can find over your competition, you'll think twice before shipping her a tarball of your source.
- StavrosK 14y agoThat's entirely off topic. We're discussing GPL versus a more free license. If anything, this is an argument for the GPL.
- buu700 14y agoOff topic? The topic, if I've read correctly, is: I feel it is sad that so few HN hackers seem to appreciate the vision of the GPL Reusing GPL'd code forces developers to in turn release their code; more free licenses don't have this effect.
- StavrosK 14y agoYes, that was the original contrast, versus the MIT license of the OP. Sure, people will opt to not release code when it contains trade secrets or whatnot, but the thread is about MIT vs GPL, basically. Anyway, not to play thread police, it just seemed to me that it was veering off into another direction. I'm cranky in the mornings!
- pbreit 14y agoGPL is an attack on the user who wants to do whatever (s)he wants.
- pygy_ 14y agoThe GPL is extremely permissive WRT users. It allows people to obtain, modify and distribute the code, provided that they keep it GPLed and provide the source with binaries. Contrast this with proprietary software. There are restrictions for developers, namely that you can't link GPLed code to non-GPLed or GPLable code, and that you can't close the source. Liberal licenses are easier on developers, but they don't guarantee that the source will remain open. Software is ubiquitous nowadays, and most appliances use closed source software of unknown quality and probity. There's spyware in every cell phone, for example. More GPL makes a better world, overall.
- enjalot 14y agoI'd rather be part of making things than attacking things. That's why I go BSD or MIT with my code.
- jasonkester 14y agoPlease not here though. By all means fire up a new thread and I'm sure you guys will wrap this up in no time. But for the sake of the rest of us here to discuss the topic we're discussing, please don't drop a little religious war into the middle of it.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- pygy_ 14y agoIt could hardly be more on topic, and until your dismissive post, the discussion was civil. You're the one who conflates licenses and religion, and who refuse to even discuss the topic. The choice of software licenses is far more nuanced than religion. There's a lot of misinformation around the GPL, and it doesn't hurt to talk about it.
- no_gravity 14y agoGPL 3 has a clause forbidding the use of GPL 3 licensed code on locked down computers. Googling for "anti tivo clause" will bring up a lot of discussion about it.