8 ms·

This happens because people don't understand the GPL and its unique ability to empower developers to write software or something really interdesting like that.

4ad 14y ago
People understand GPL just fine. The described trend is caused by consciously rejecting GPLs ideals, not because of ignorance.
- mjn 14y ago
  In academia my impression is that the decline of the GPL is due to business models more than ideals. There was a period of popularity in the 1990s and 2000s where dual-licensing GPL/commercial was used as an attempt to both open-source the code while still making money from commercial users who would pay for a non-GPL license. The copyleftness in that strategy wasn't really about agreeing with RMS, but about making sure you'd get paid if the next version of Matlab shipped with your code in it. But only a handful of projects that've tried that have been successful at making any money from it (the Stanford Parser is one example that has been). My anecdotal impression is that the trend is therefore towards picking either openness or money as the goal, instead of trying the dual strategy. If openness is the goal, you pick MIT/BSD, because they're simpler and you hope lots of people will pick up your code, and maybe you'll get paid in citations and PR. If money is the goal, go for a full commercial licensing strategy, and either don't release the code publicly at all, or release it with a research-use-only/no-commercial-use clause.
  - kstenerud 14y ago
    What I've found is that open sourcing components that are not central to your business, but that your business depends upon, provides you with free stress testing, bug fixes, and enhancements. That's a huge win, and leaves you with more resources to concentrate on things that ARE central to your business. In order to maximize uptake on your open sourced component, it makes sense to have an uncomplicated license. Take a look at the following licenses: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html When I'm looking to use some component I found on the internet, part of my decision is based on the potential for legal pitfalls. I suspect that others feel the same way.
- mccoyst 14y ago
  I don't think that most people understand the GPL. Everybody understands the basic spirit of it, but there are lots of details spread throughout that huge document. The preamble is longer than many permissive licenses. .That there is a preamble at all speaks to the complexity. It's too much for a small group or individual without access to a lawyer, and I don't think people in these cases are going to use a license that they don't fully understand.
  - hammersend 14y ago
    I just took the time to read the GPL both versions 2 and 3. It is pretty cut and dry as far as licenses go. Do you have any actual evidence that small groups or individuals are having trouble understanding it to the extent that it would have a statistically significant impact on its uptake?
- zobzu 14y ago
  "The described trend is caused by consciously rejecting GPLs ideals," I very highly doubt that. There are 3 cases I can think of: 1 - Business related models: "we're scared of GPL, we don't know what it is, but force devs to use smth else or code it from scratch" 2 - We're devs and due to 1, and possibly startups, we'll want non-GPL code. We'll also start to spam the community how GPL is bad in any possible way. 3 - All the devs are telling me GPL sux. I'm a cool and hip new person I'll do what they say to fit in. (I don't even care about what the GPL is made for). Now, one could wonder, why'd they want to even use BSD or similar licenses? They could just go with public domain. THat's "real" freedom to their ears isn't it? Anyone does anything they want with it. Perfect. Not so. They use BSD for credits. BSD forces you to retain copyright in the code, and that means if your name is in the code, you're getting a job very, very easily. So you see, all the above only tells me one thing: People who know are misleading others (like you just did) on purpose for financial reasons, not because GPL ideals are wrong. It would be OK if they at least mentioned the reasons in these simple terms. But that wouldn't help them achieve their goals, if others keep on using the GPL. Shame on them, shame on you.
  - pm90 14y ago
    ..Not so. They use BSD for credits. I don't quite understand....why is it shameful if a developer wants to retain ownership/claim authorship over the code that he spent time and effort in developing?
  - CJefferson 14y ago
    "Public domain" is an unclear concept, I am under the impression that in many countries there is no such thing as "public domain" from a strict legal perspective. BSD is (for me) the closest thing to a clear legal "public domain", and that is why I use it. Also, the GPL is incompatible with the iOS store, which is a serious problem for many people.
    - cygx 14y ago
      This is correct. For example, German law is based on the concept of 'Urheberrecht', ie 'creator's rights', instead of 'copyright'. This is the reason why copyright notices (which were mandatory in the US until 1989 according to Wikipedia) were never necessary in Germany and why there's no direct equivalent to public domain: As soon as you create something worthwhile, you gain creator's rights, and as you remain the creator no matter what you do or what usage rights you grant to others, you can't give them away completely. There's a somewhat recent, rather embarrassing quote by German politician and lawyer Volker Kauder, who claimed to have acquired creator's rights to some images he used on his homepage without having the appropriate usage rights. Anyway, you need an explicit license like http://pdclib.rootdirectory.de/wiki/License http://pdclib.rootdirectory.de/wiki/License or http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ if you're German and want to add code to the 'public domain'.
npsimons 14y ago
I'd have to second this; there is a lot of FUD being put out about how the GPL "takes away" "freedoms" from the developer, when the truth is that if someone is writing something from scratch, they have de facto copyright and can relicense the code any way they want, at any time. Only versions released under GPL are out in the wild as "lost sales", and are more likely to garner good will than cause a loss of profits. As for BSD, well you wouldn't want your competition locking up your code and selling it back to you, now would you? And all the other licenses, while more finely nuanced to different needs, are also not as straightforward. I don't understand why GPL isn't more widespread.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >I don't understand why GPL isn't more widespread. Honestly, for me? Viral nature. I don't want to put off a company using my code (well, for most things I do) because they don't want to be bound by the requirement to give away the source. That's kind of why I'm a fan of Creative Commons, attribution share-alike, with possibly noncommercial depending on what it is and my mood at the time. The GPL is just a pain in the ass for all involved. At least that's how I see it.
  - cpnks 14y ago
    What distinction do you see between CC-SSA and GPL? They say essentially the same thing. CC-SS has the same viral nature as the GPL/LGPL (it's about halfway in between the two). The GPL has a lot of FUD about it, but there's very little actually offensive about it.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      I should have been more clear. The neat thing about the entire CC class of licenses is that it's easy to pick from what you want to do based on what you're doing. A license framework if you will. The GPL doesn't have that - and as you said, CC-BY-SA is probably the closest - but I don't have to use CC-BY-SA if I don't want to. Maybe I don't care as long as my name's on it. Then I can just use CC-BY. The FUD you speak of is another reason I tend to shy away from GPL - both in terms of enforcement (shown to be tricky, thought the SA CC license would have the same issue), and it's association with RMS and the culture and FUD surrounding it. Another thing is that CC lends itself better to things that aren't computer code.
huhtenberg 14y ago
Empowering with something that can't be enforced in practice is not exactly empowering, it's a make believe.
- regularfry 14y ago
  Why do you say it can't be enforced?
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    I'll answer that - because only the developer can enforce it. Let's say you're an end user and you know for a fact that a library in a proprietary app is GPLed and the seller is not complying with the terms of the license by not coughing up the code. You don't have the legal standing to take the the seller to court and demand they comply with the terms of a license between them and the original developer of the GPL'ed code, even though you're technically a party to it as the release of the code benefits you. Law is a funny thing.
    - regularfry 14y ago
      I agree in the literal sense, but couldn't you look at the GPL as an agreement between the original developer and all downstream users that the developer will enforce terms when violations are brought to light?
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        One would think - but the obligation is not there (nor should it be really, this would only hamper its further adoption even more than it already is) Agreed it's the right thing to do, but if I write a GPL module which is later used in say, a Microsoft product, I don't have the desire, the time, or even the money to take them to court.
  - huhtenberg 14y ago
    How exactly are you going to enforce GPL compliance when a Chinese company uses your library in their proprietary product? Bonus question - what exactly will you be gaining by spending your time on enforcing the GPL compliance rather than on something else (like coding)?
Tangurena 14y ago
The religious war of "free" versus "open" is what turns a lot of people off. Previously, when posting code I wrote, I'd pick MIT license which would allow users to do what they wanted. Picking GPL would mean that many potential users would be prohibited by company policy from using it.
- billpatrianakos 14y ago
  Exactly. I'm one of those who honestly doesn't mind if anyone comes along, forks, closes the source, and makes a million off my code. I think it's a lot about money. There's also this rejection of the FOSS ideals. The GPL puts a lot of people off because it can be perceived as being more about ego and anti-profit rather than true freedom. For me personally, I prefer open source to free because I'm against restricting anyone's usage of my code and don't mind if they don't contribute back. I think people's intentions have changed too. It was once all about paying things forward and now the importance seems to be placed on simply sharing with no regard to how the code is used or by whom.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I prefer open source to free The approaches are different, but in terms of licenses and rights, Open Source and Free Software are mostly the same. MIT and BSD are Free Software too.
    - billpatrianakos 14y ago
      Really? I mean, I know they're very close but correct me if I'm wrong here: First, let me be clear that I'm talking about Free in terms of how the GPL codifies it. So Free software a la the GPL always begets more free software. Open source on the other hand is free but you can close that source up and make a nice profit without contributing back. I'm for the latter and that's the distinction I was getting at. I know all the licenses have their nuances but generally speaking free GPL style licenses forbid not contributing back whereas open source generally let's people do as they please as far as contributing your changes go.

4ad 14y ago

People understand GPL just fine. The described trend is caused by consciously rejecting GPLs ideals, not because of ignorance.

mjn 14y ago
In academia my impression is that the decline of the GPL is due to business models more than ideals. There was a period of popularity in the 1990s and 2000s where dual-licensing GPL/commercial was used as an attempt to both open-source the code while still making money from commercial users who would pay for a non-GPL license. The copyleftness in that strategy wasn't really about agreeing with RMS, but about making sure you'd get paid if the next version of Matlab shipped with your code in it. But only a handful of projects that've tried that have been successful at making any money from it (the Stanford Parser is one example that has been). My anecdotal impression is that the trend is therefore towards picking either openness or money as the goal, instead of trying the dual strategy. If openness is the goal, you pick MIT/BSD, because they're simpler and you hope lots of people will pick up your code, and maybe you'll get paid in citations and PR. If money is the goal, go for a full commercial licensing strategy, and either don't release the code publicly at all, or release it with a research-use-only/no-commercial-use clause.
- kstenerud 14y ago
  What I've found is that open sourcing components that are not central to your business, but that your business depends upon, provides you with free stress testing, bug fixes, and enhancements. That's a huge win, and leaves you with more resources to concentrate on things that ARE central to your business. In order to maximize uptake on your open sourced component, it makes sense to have an uncomplicated license. Take a look at the following licenses: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html When I'm looking to use some component I found on the internet, part of my decision is based on the potential for legal pitfalls. I suspect that others feel the same way.
mccoyst 14y ago
I don't think that most people understand the GPL. Everybody understands the basic spirit of it, but there are lots of details spread throughout that huge document. The preamble is longer than many permissive licenses. .That there is a preamble at all speaks to the complexity. It's too much for a small group or individual without access to a lawyer, and I don't think people in these cases are going to use a license that they don't fully understand.
- hammersend 14y ago
  I just took the time to read the GPL both versions 2 and 3. It is pretty cut and dry as far as licenses go. Do you have any actual evidence that small groups or individuals are having trouble understanding it to the extent that it would have a statistically significant impact on its uptake?
zobzu 14y ago
"The described trend is caused by consciously rejecting GPLs ideals," I very highly doubt that. There are 3 cases I can think of: 1 - Business related models: "we're scared of GPL, we don't know what it is, but force devs to use smth else or code it from scratch" 2 - We're devs and due to 1, and possibly startups, we'll want non-GPL code. We'll also start to spam the community how GPL is bad in any possible way. 3 - All the devs are telling me GPL sux. I'm a cool and hip new person I'll do what they say to fit in. (I don't even care about what the GPL is made for). Now, one could wonder, why'd they want to even use BSD or similar licenses? They could just go with public domain. THat's "real" freedom to their ears isn't it? Anyone does anything they want with it. Perfect. Not so. They use BSD for credits. BSD forces you to retain copyright in the code, and that means if your name is in the code, you're getting a job very, very easily. So you see, all the above only tells me one thing: People who know are misleading others (like you just did) on purpose for financial reasons, not because GPL ideals are wrong. It would be OK if they at least mentioned the reasons in these simple terms. But that wouldn't help them achieve their goals, if others keep on using the GPL. Shame on them, shame on you.
- pm90 14y ago
  ..Not so. They use BSD for credits. I don't quite understand....why is it shameful if a developer wants to retain ownership/claim authorship over the code that he spent time and effort in developing?
- CJefferson 14y ago
  "Public domain" is an unclear concept, I am under the impression that in many countries there is no such thing as "public domain" from a strict legal perspective. BSD is (for me) the closest thing to a clear legal "public domain", and that is why I use it. Also, the GPL is incompatible with the iOS store, which is a serious problem for many people.
  - cygx 14y ago
    This is correct. For example, German law is based on the concept of 'Urheberrecht', ie 'creator's rights', instead of 'copyright'. This is the reason why copyright notices (which were mandatory in the US until 1989 according to Wikipedia) were never necessary in Germany and why there's no direct equivalent to public domain: As soon as you create something worthwhile, you gain creator's rights, and as you remain the creator no matter what you do or what usage rights you grant to others, you can't give them away completely. There's a somewhat recent, rather embarrassing quote by German politician and lawyer Volker Kauder, who claimed to have acquired creator's rights to some images he used on his homepage without having the appropriate usage rights. Anyway, you need an explicit license like http://pdclib.rootdirectory.de/wiki/License http://pdclib.rootdirectory.de/wiki/License or http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ if you're German and want to add code to the 'public domain'.

npsimons 14y ago

I'd have to second this; there is a lot of FUD being put out about how the GPL "takes away" "freedoms" from the developer, when the truth is that if someone is writing something from scratch, they have de facto copyright and can relicense the code any way they want, at any time. Only versions released under GPL are out in the wild as "lost sales", and are more likely to garner good will than cause a loss of profits. As for BSD, well you wouldn't want your competition locking up your code and selling it back to you, now would you? And all the other licenses, while more finely nuanced to different needs, are also not as straightforward. I don't understand why GPL isn't more widespread.

Karunamon 14y ago
>I don't understand why GPL isn't more widespread. Honestly, for me? Viral nature. I don't want to put off a company using my code (well, for most things I do) because they don't want to be bound by the requirement to give away the source. That's kind of why I'm a fan of Creative Commons, attribution share-alike, with possibly noncommercial depending on what it is and my mood at the time. The GPL is just a pain in the ass for all involved. At least that's how I see it.
- cpnks 14y ago
  What distinction do you see between CC-SSA and GPL? They say essentially the same thing. CC-SS has the same viral nature as the GPL/LGPL (it's about halfway in between the two). The GPL has a lot of FUD about it, but there's very little actually offensive about it.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    I should have been more clear. The neat thing about the entire CC class of licenses is that it's easy to pick from what you want to do based on what you're doing. A license framework if you will. The GPL doesn't have that - and as you said, CC-BY-SA is probably the closest - but I don't have to use CC-BY-SA if I don't want to. Maybe I don't care as long as my name's on it. Then I can just use CC-BY. The FUD you speak of is another reason I tend to shy away from GPL - both in terms of enforcement (shown to be tricky, thought the SA CC license would have the same issue), and it's association with RMS and the culture and FUD surrounding it. Another thing is that CC lends itself better to things that aren't computer code.

huhtenberg 14y ago

Empowering with something that can't be enforced in practice is not exactly empowering, it's a make believe.

regularfry 14y ago
Why do you say it can't be enforced?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  I'll answer that - because only the developer can enforce it. Let's say you're an end user and you know for a fact that a library in a proprietary app is GPLed and the seller is not complying with the terms of the license by not coughing up the code. You don't have the legal standing to take the the seller to court and demand they comply with the terms of a license between them and the original developer of the GPL'ed code, even though you're technically a party to it as the release of the code benefits you. Law is a funny thing.
  - regularfry 14y ago
    I agree in the literal sense, but couldn't you look at the GPL as an agreement between the original developer and all downstream users that the developer will enforce terms when violations are brought to light?
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      One would think - but the obligation is not there (nor should it be really, this would only hamper its further adoption even more than it already is) Agreed it's the right thing to do, but if I write a GPL module which is later used in say, a Microsoft product, I don't have the desire, the time, or even the money to take them to court.
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  How exactly are you going to enforce GPL compliance when a Chinese company uses your library in their proprietary product? Bonus question - what exactly will you be gaining by spending your time on enforcing the GPL compliance rather than on something else (like coding)?

Tangurena 14y ago

The religious war of "free" versus "open" is what turns a lot of people off. Previously, when posting code I wrote, I'd pick MIT license which would allow users to do what they wanted. Picking GPL would mean that many potential users would be prohibited by company policy from using it.

billpatrianakos 14y ago
Exactly. I'm one of those who honestly doesn't mind if anyone comes along, forks, closes the source, and makes a million off my code. I think it's a lot about money. There's also this rejection of the FOSS ideals. The GPL puts a lot of people off because it can be perceived as being more about ego and anti-profit rather than true freedom. For me personally, I prefer open source to free because I'm against restricting anyone's usage of my code and don't mind if they don't contribute back. I think people's intentions have changed too. It was once all about paying things forward and now the importance seems to be placed on simply sharing with no regard to how the code is used or by whom.
- icebraining 14y ago
  I prefer open source to free The approaches are different, but in terms of licenses and rights, Open Source and Free Software are mostly the same. MIT and BSD are Free Software too.
  - billpatrianakos 14y ago
    Really? I mean, I know they're very close but correct me if I'm wrong here: First, let me be clear that I'm talking about Free in terms of how the GPL codifies it. So Free software a la the GPL always begets more free software. Open source on the other hand is free but you can close that source up and make a nice profit without contributing back. I'm for the latter and that's the distinction I was getting at. I know all the licenses have their nuances but generally speaking free GPL style licenses forbid not contributing back whereas open source generally let's people do as they please as far as contributing your changes go.