4 ms·

Usually, the developers (and this is over multiple different GPL projects with different leads) have the following thought: 1. If you’re not touching the core

by dagmx 3y ago

Usually, the developers (and this is over multiple different GPL projects with different leads) have the following thought: 1. If you’re not touching the core code, it’s not under the GPL. I try and get them to LGPL license the extension points but they don’t see the benefit in trying to relicense it with all their contributors. 2. For your second point, the issue is that the GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. The issue becomes that, as a corporate user: I have to take the most pessimistic view to protect myself. If I switch my hat to someone non corporate, then I take the most optimistic view. In those cases, they often say to not take the pessimistic view because that’s not the spirit as they understand it.

growse 3y ago
I think I'm with you on this in general > 1. If you’re not touching the core code, it’s not under the GPL. I try and get them to LGPL license the extension points but they don’t see the benefit in trying to relicense it with all their contributors. I sense this comes down to a really poor definition of "linking" (is that the word in the text? Can't remember and don't have it to hand). It's not at all obvious for each software/language ecosystem which specific act constitutes "linking". > 2. For your second point, the issue is that the GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. The issue becomes that, as a corporate user: I have to take the most pessimistic view to protect myself. If I switch my hat to someone non corporate, then I take the most optimistic view. In those cases, they often say to not take the pessimistic view because that’s not the spirit as they understand it. 100%, and this is my gripe against things like the BSL too. It's disingenuous because the aim of the license is to create risk and uncertainty through poor definitions and vagueness.
- Nursie 3y ago
  > It's disingenuous because the aim of the license is to create risk It’s really not, the aim of the GPL is to preserve freedom to tinker and reuse for all users. If that’s not something you’re wanting to do, then it’s best not to use GPL components.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    Yep, that's what the GP said.
  - growse 3y ago
    Both things can be true. The wealth of comments in this very discussion from people who aren't sure what exactly is and isn't permitted under the GPL shows that it is vague. I'm just not convinced that the lack of clarity which tends to steer large companies away from such software is just a bug, not a feature.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      > people who aren't sure what exactly is and isn't permitted under the GPL shows that it is vague this is literally FALSE
    - Nursie 3y ago
      Whether it is vague, and whether it is purposely vague as a mechanism to achieve its aims, are different phenomena to the aim of the license. IMHO.
mistrial9 3y ago
> GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. no the GPL was intentionally set the way it was.. vague is not the word for that IMHO.. thirty+ years of computer markets has brought every possible challenge plus a few more. So the original LICENSE has been deeply scrutinized and the markets have changes... the parts that needed clarification have had changes as a result. "vague" is mildly insulting, and there is plenty of that going on as part of this discussion.

by dagmx 3y ago

growse 3y ago

I think I'm with you on this in general > 1. If you’re not touching the core code, it’s not under the GPL. I try and get them to LGPL license the extension points but they don’t see the benefit in trying to relicense it with all their contributors. I sense this comes down to a really poor definition of "linking" (is that the word in the text? Can't remember and don't have it to hand). It's not at all obvious for each software/language ecosystem which specific act constitutes "linking". > 2. For your second point, the issue is that the GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. The issue becomes that, as a corporate user: I have to take the most pessimistic view to protect myself. If I switch my hat to someone non corporate, then I take the most optimistic view. In those cases, they often say to not take the pessimistic view because that’s not the spirit as they understand it. 100%, and this is my gripe against things like the BSL too. It's disingenuous because the aim of the license is to create risk and uncertainty through poor definitions and vagueness.

Nursie 3y ago
> It's disingenuous because the aim of the license is to create risk It’s really not, the aim of the GPL is to preserve freedom to tinker and reuse for all users. If that’s not something you’re wanting to do, then it’s best not to use GPL components.
- hnfong 3y ago
  Yep, that's what the GP said.
- growse 3y ago
  Both things can be true. The wealth of comments in this very discussion from people who aren't sure what exactly is and isn't permitted under the GPL shows that it is vague. I'm just not convinced that the lack of clarity which tends to steer large companies away from such software is just a bug, not a feature.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    > people who aren't sure what exactly is and isn't permitted under the GPL shows that it is vague this is literally FALSE
  - Nursie 3y ago
    Whether it is vague, and whether it is purposely vague as a mechanism to achieve its aims, are different phenomena to the aim of the license. IMHO.

mistrial9 3y ago

> GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. no the GPL was intentionally set the way it was.. vague is not the word for that IMHO.. thirty+ years of computer markets has brought every possible challenge plus a few more. So the original LICENSE has been deeply scrutinized and the markets have changes... the parts that needed clarification have had changes as a result. "vague" is mildly insulting, and there is plenty of that going on as part of this discussion.