7 ms·

From a user perspective, GPL offers in theory more freedom, since new products built on codebase X will also be free. It is debatable if this is true in practi

by geon 15y ago

From a user perspective, GPL offers in theory more freedom, since new products built on codebase X will also be free. It is debatable if this is true in practice. If less software gets built as a result of the license restriction, the GPL takes away freedom. Even closed source software adds some freedom - the freedom of choice. From a developer perspective, there is no question which one is more free. We often do not have the choice to release our software as open source, and when we do, an invasive license like the GPL is still a headache. If I can pick up a library or framework and just use it, that's the one I will pick.

vasco 15y ago
I agree with you, but just to point out what I believe the GPL people think about your point: If you're going to write non-GPL'ed code, they would prefer you wouldn't even write the code, Stallman has said this many times. I think they equate this to something along the lines of just creating more "prisons" and just because you have a bunch of "prisons" to choose where to spend your life, it doesn't make you more free
- melling 15y ago
  Did he say this? Seems like a really bad analogy to me. If more people are using Meteor, for example, the entire ecosystem will grow. Even if half the devs are writing closed source, they are learning a common tool and that skill lets them contribute to the common knowledge pool (eg. they can answers questions on StackOverFlow). It also creates a bigger market for Meteor developers, thus accelerating adoption.
  - vasco 15y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymuqUJ3MsEs&t=3m12s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymuqUJ3MsEs&t=3m12s
    - maxerickson 15y ago
      He says 'non free' there, not non-GPL'ed. The FSF considers lots of licenses other than the GPL to be 'free software'.
      - ubernostrum 15y ago
        The FSF has little choice but to consider a lot of licenses "free", but is also quite clear in the opinion that strong-copyleft licenses are always superior, and that people who do not use strong-copyleft licenses aren't really as good as people who do use them.
        maxerickson 15y ago
        That's still pretty far off from "prefer you wouldn't even write the code".
stoolpigeon 15y ago
I would say there is a question from a developer perspective. The idea that more choice is better and makes one more free is a cultural one and not an objective fact. There is a point where one has too many choices and they become a real encumbrance. I think Barry Schwarz has done a good job of describing this phenomenon. I think Vasco is also brings up another valid argument. Not all choices are equal and some are not even actually choices. Either way you want to look at it, one can honestly make a sensible and consistent argument that more software does not automatically mean more freedom.
pornel 15y ago
"GPL takes away freedom" is a very developer-centric point of view. From user point of view GPL gives freedoms that MIT/BSD don't give. Where freedoms of developers and users conflict, GPL sides with users. In other words, GPL only takes away your freedom to take freedom away from others. If you don't intend to restrict others' freedoms, GPL shouldn't get in your way.
- ubernostrum 15y ago
  The GPL actually trades off freedom over time. Specifically, it trades away actual freedom right now for the person who currently has a copy of the code, in an attempt to secure potential freedom later for people who do not yet but might someday have copies of the code or of code derived from it. As such, the GPL is always, in the "now", a license which grants less freedom than, say, the BSD or MIT licenses. Most objections to the GPL, including my own, come from a position of cost/benefit on the trade it wants to make, and of disagreeing that that trade is worth making.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Specifically, it trades away actual freedom right now for the person who currently has a copy of the code... How so? As far as I know, if I have GPL code, I can do whatever I want with it. Could you tell me any action I might want to take that the GPL prevents? The only "freedom" the GPL removes is the freedom to restrict the actions of others. To me, that seems like a rather odd sort of freedom.
    - Someone 15y ago
      Compile it, sell the binaries without do not inform the buyer that he can get the sources and/or refuse to give them those sources on request.
    - gcr 15y ago
      Link BSD software with the GPL code. I go out of my way to avoid or rewrite the GPL libraries I need because of this restriction.
mike-cardwell 15y ago
I license code under the GPL. If I write something and release it open source, I'm doing you a favour by letting you use it for free. If you make changes and distribute them, the least you can do is return the favour and give them back. If you're not happy with that arrangement, you're free to not use my code. I wouldn't be happy if I spent a lot of time writing some open source software and then a company came along, improved on it, and distributed it in their closed, proprietary software. That's why I prefer the GPL over the MIT license.
- dhimes 15y ago
  If you're not happy with that arrangement, you're free to not use my code Exactly. This conversation exists because guelo was complaining about people choosing to not use the GPL code. They don't like the arrangement. geon articulates why.
  - guelo 15y ago
    It was anti-gpl people that pressured meteor to change their license.
    - dhimes 15y ago
      I don't follow this war so I don't know if "anti-gpl" is a known, identifiable group that actively fights the gpl, or if it is a term you are using to describe dissenters in threads like this. If the latter, be careful: people like me aren't anti-gpl, it's just not the right tool for everything I do. I am working on software that may have some "magic sauce" on which my business thrives, and for this I wouldn't choose to give it a license that says I have to give it away for free. There are those who think I shouldn't be able to make something of value (known because others are willing to pay for it) and not give it away at all. Or rather, I can, but not software. But let me give you an analogy. Suppose somebody sold a camera- a very nice camera- that came with the terms of use that said, "Any picture you take with this camera must be made available to anybody who wants it at full resolution and downloadable from your website (etc etc)." Furthermore, some versions of the license state that any work which includes any picture from this camera has to be made available for free. So if you make a poster, or a collage, or anything else with the picture you have to make to poster, collage, etc. downloadable at full resolution for no charge. My guess would be the not many professional photographers would use the camera for their professional work. It might be great for students, or for artists trying to make a name for themselves, for personal use, and/or perhaps a slew of folks I'm not thinking of right now. But not for pros. In fact, if all cameras started doing this it may seriously harm the field of professional photography. I wouldn't pay a professional photographer to take pictures for a branding series of advertisements that my competitor could simply steal and reuse to devalue my branding. Parents of small kids would give serious consideration as to whether they want the pics of the kids on the web (I have to sign a release for if, for instance, a school or camp wants to use my kids' picture in its promotional material, for example- so it's a concern for some at least). So the idea that all software should be gpl is not correct, in my view, although I am not in any way anti-gpl.
some1else 15y ago
Freedom of choice is inherent and not relevant to the subject. I chose not to go to an Irish pub to watch the game between Barcelona and Madrid tonight just as I chose to investigate Derby instead of Meteor because of its previous licensing policy. We can agree that the existence of the Irish pub increased my number of possible choices, but it didn't extend my freedom of action. I had the _option_ of going to an Irish pub, but I had the _freedom_ of smoking a cigarette at the terrace I chose to go to.

by geon 15y ago

vasco 15y ago

I agree with you, but just to point out what I believe the GPL people think about your point: If you're going to write non-GPL'ed code, they would prefer you wouldn't even write the code, Stallman has said this many times. I think they equate this to something along the lines of just creating more "prisons" and just because you have a bunch of "prisons" to choose where to spend your life, it doesn't make you more free

melling 15y ago
Did he say this? Seems like a really bad analogy to me. If more people are using Meteor, for example, the entire ecosystem will grow. Even if half the devs are writing closed source, they are learning a common tool and that skill lets them contribute to the common knowledge pool (eg. they can answers questions on StackOverFlow). It also creates a bigger market for Meteor developers, thus accelerating adoption.
- vasco 15y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymuqUJ3MsEs&t=3m12s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymuqUJ3MsEs&t=3m12s
  - maxerickson 15y ago
    He says 'non free' there, not non-GPL'ed. The FSF considers lots of licenses other than the GPL to be 'free software'.
    - ubernostrum 15y ago
      The FSF has little choice but to consider a lot of licenses "free", but is also quite clear in the opinion that strong-copyleft licenses are always superior, and that people who do not use strong-copyleft licenses aren't really as good as people who do use them.
      - maxerickson 15y ago
        That's still pretty far off from "prefer you wouldn't even write the code".

stoolpigeon 15y ago

I would say there is a question from a developer perspective. The idea that more choice is better and makes one more free is a cultural one and not an objective fact. There is a point where one has too many choices and they become a real encumbrance. I think Barry Schwarz has done a good job of describing this phenomenon. I think Vasco is also brings up another valid argument. Not all choices are equal and some are not even actually choices. Either way you want to look at it, one can honestly make a sensible and consistent argument that more software does not automatically mean more freedom.

pornel 15y ago

"GPL takes away freedom" is a very developer-centric point of view. From user point of view GPL gives freedoms that MIT/BSD don't give. Where freedoms of developers and users conflict, GPL sides with users. In other words, GPL only takes away your freedom to take freedom away from others. If you don't intend to restrict others' freedoms, GPL shouldn't get in your way.

ubernostrum 15y ago
The GPL actually trades off freedom over time. Specifically, it trades away actual freedom right now for the person who currently has a copy of the code, in an attempt to secure potential freedom later for people who do not yet but might someday have copies of the code or of code derived from it. As such, the GPL is always, in the "now", a license which grants less freedom than, say, the BSD or MIT licenses. Most objections to the GPL, including my own, come from a position of cost/benefit on the trade it wants to make, and of disagreeing that that trade is worth making.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Specifically, it trades away actual freedom right now for the person who currently has a copy of the code... How so? As far as I know, if I have GPL code, I can do whatever I want with it. Could you tell me any action I might want to take that the GPL prevents? The only "freedom" the GPL removes is the freedom to restrict the actions of others. To me, that seems like a rather odd sort of freedom.
  - Someone 15y ago
    Compile it, sell the binaries without do not inform the buyer that he can get the sources and/or refuse to give them those sources on request.
  - gcr 15y ago
    Link BSD software with the GPL code. I go out of my way to avoid or rewrite the GPL libraries I need because of this restriction.

mike-cardwell 15y ago

I license code under the GPL. If I write something and release it open source, I'm doing you a favour by letting you use it for free. If you make changes and distribute them, the least you can do is return the favour and give them back. If you're not happy with that arrangement, you're free to not use my code. I wouldn't be happy if I spent a lot of time writing some open source software and then a company came along, improved on it, and distributed it in their closed, proprietary software. That's why I prefer the GPL over the MIT license.

dhimes 15y ago
If you're not happy with that arrangement, you're free to not use my code Exactly. This conversation exists because guelo was complaining about people choosing to not use the GPL code. They don't like the arrangement. geon articulates why.
- guelo 15y ago
  It was anti-gpl people that pressured meteor to change their license.
  - dhimes 15y ago
    I don't follow this war so I don't know if "anti-gpl" is a known, identifiable group that actively fights the gpl, or if it is a term you are using to describe dissenters in threads like this. If the latter, be careful: people like me aren't anti-gpl, it's just not the right tool for everything I do. I am working on software that may have some "magic sauce" on which my business thrives, and for this I wouldn't choose to give it a license that says I have to give it away for free. There are those who think I shouldn't be able to make something of value (known because others are willing to pay for it) and not give it away at all. Or rather, I can, but not software. But let me give you an analogy. Suppose somebody sold a camera- a very nice camera- that came with the terms of use that said, "Any picture you take with this camera must be made available to anybody who wants it at full resolution and downloadable from your website (etc etc)." Furthermore, some versions of the license state that any work which includes any picture from this camera has to be made available for free. So if you make a poster, or a collage, or anything else with the picture you have to make to poster, collage, etc. downloadable at full resolution for no charge. My guess would be the not many professional photographers would use the camera for their professional work. It might be great for students, or for artists trying to make a name for themselves, for personal use, and/or perhaps a slew of folks I'm not thinking of right now. But not for pros. In fact, if all cameras started doing this it may seriously harm the field of professional photography. I wouldn't pay a professional photographer to take pictures for a branding series of advertisements that my competitor could simply steal and reuse to devalue my branding. Parents of small kids would give serious consideration as to whether they want the pics of the kids on the web (I have to sign a release for if, for instance, a school or camp wants to use my kids' picture in its promotional material, for example- so it's a concern for some at least). So the idea that all software should be gpl is not correct, in my view, although I am not in any way anti-gpl.

some1else 15y ago

Freedom of choice is inherent and not relevant to the subject. I chose not to go to an Irish pub to watch the game between Barcelona and Madrid tonight just as I chose to investigate Derby instead of Meteor because of its previous licensing policy. We can agree that the existence of the Irish pub increased my number of possible choices, but it didn't extend my freedom of action. I had the _option_ of going to an Irish pub, but I had the _freedom_ of smoking a cigarette at the terrace I chose to go to.