4 ms·

> I prefer the MIT license for my own projects. Yes, but it's a different license! It's not really comparable with regards to preference because the goal of MI

> I prefer the MIT license for my own projects. Yes, but it's a different license! It's not really comparable with regards to preference because the goal of MIT or BSD is different to GPL. If $PROJECT-1 can be modified and then redistributed as closed-source by $COMPANY, then MIT is a good fit. If $PROJECT-2 must only ever be redistributed if $COMPANY redistributes their modifications and derivatives as open-source, then GPL is a good fit. It depends on the specific project, which is why I cannot say "I prefer MIT" or "I prefer GPL", because for some projects I don't want it repackaged and released as proprietary software, while with others I do want others to repackage and redistribute as proprietary software. Proclaiming a preference for one type of license over another is akin to saying "I prefer bicycles", because you aren't going to prefer bicycles when needing transport to move house.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
You aren’t discussing the controversial part at all. You have laid out the part that everyone agrees with. GPLv2 means you pass your modifications back - easy. GPLv2 might mean that by calling a libraries static functions from your code, that is a “modification”, and now must include code that is not logically a modification at all. This is even more grey area if you dynamically link them - hard. “What is a derivative” has feed millions of lawyer’s family’s, imo this type of broad interpretation does not belong in OSS. Give it to me or don’t, I promise to pass my modifications back, but don’t pretend that integrating it into my code is modification that allows you to see what I do with it. LGPL makes more sense. But GPLv2/3 has a business model and that is why it is popular and complex.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > What is a derivative” has feed millions of lawyer’s family’s, imo this type of broad interpretation does not belong in OSS I am sorry but your view is dying out because it’s unrealistic. Most things in life have grey areas, most things in life have legal concerns and liability attached. Even the simplest possible things, like If you sell bicycles and someone breaks their neck, they could sue and there will be grey areas as to the bicycles’s quality. If you sell food and someone gets food poisoning, same thing. The fact that software developers could make millions and never worry about law, is a giant privilege and it’s disappearing because software is no longer just for kittens and porn, it is now everywhere and it’s responsible for life and limb
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    Show me where quality of software is in this discussion.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      That’s a different criteria. The software now has to compliant. Its not always higher quality
- lelanthran 3y ago
  I wasn't discussing any part at all, I was explaining why the goal of the project determines the license and not the preference of the authors. If the goal is to allow others to close off the product, then one license is suitable. If the goal is to prevent others from turning it into a closed source product, then you choose the other license. When the goal is "popularity amongst closed off companies", then one license makes sense. If the goal is "popularity for the community" then the other license makes sense. There was a no value in arguing over which is easier for companies unless the goal is popularity for companies and o close off. After all, any company that simply wants to use the software without redistribution doesn't really care.
User23 3y ago
I disagree. The GPL is fundamentally an ideological document with an ideological purpose in a way that the BSD and MIT licenses are not.
- humanistbot 3y ago
  All software and copyright licenses are ideological documents. You don't see the ideology in BSD and MIT because it is your preferred ideology.
  - User23 3y ago
    > All software and copyright licenses are ideological documents. You don't see the ideology in BSD and MIT because it is your preferred ideology. Please read what I wrote more carefully. The phrase "in a way that the BSD and MIT licenses are not" is doing important work, namely implying that there is a way in which MIT/BSD are ideological. Perhaps ideological came off as an aspersion? I certainly didn't mean it as one. It's just an observation, and frankly a pretty obvious one. I'm quite sympathetic to the Free Software movement and, at least in the first order, would be happy to live in a world where all software is copyleft. BSD/MIT is essentially reverting to the natural conditions that would obtain without statutory copyright. GPL on the other hand is actively attempting to motivate sharing and respect for user freedom in a way that is far beyond the natural state of affairs. Thus it's fairly described as ideological in a way that the former licenses are not.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      > Please read what I wrote more carefully. I think GP's reading of what you wrote is an entirely reasonable reading. Their interpretation was the same as mine before reading your follow-up. It did seem like you were saying that the GPL has ideology but BSD and MIT do not. It would have been much clearer if you had simply said something like, "The ideology behind the GPL is very different from that of the BSD or MIT licenses".
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > Please read what I wrote more carefully. I read what you wrote and I came to the same conclusion as GP. What's wrong with simply saying "BSD/MIT has a different ideology to the GPL"? Is that what you mean to say? If it is, why say this (which means something else): > BSD/MIT is essentially reverting to the natural conditions that would obtain without statutory copyright. GPL on the other hand is actively attempting to motivate sharing and respect for user freedom in a way that is far beyond the natural state of affairs. Thus it's fairly described as ideological in a way that the former licenses are not. I think you're still trying to portray one more positively than the other; you're writing a lot of words to claim "I'm not really saying that" while actually saying that.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago

You aren’t discussing the controversial part at all. You have laid out the part that everyone agrees with. GPLv2 means you pass your modifications back - easy. GPLv2 might mean that by calling a libraries static functions from your code, that is a “modification”, and now must include code that is not logically a modification at all. This is even more grey area if you dynamically link them - hard. “What is a derivative” has feed millions of lawyer’s family’s, imo this type of broad interpretation does not belong in OSS. Give it to me or don’t, I promise to pass my modifications back, but don’t pretend that integrating it into my code is modification that allows you to see what I do with it. LGPL makes more sense. But GPLv2/3 has a business model and that is why it is popular and complex.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> What is a derivative” has feed millions of lawyer’s family’s, imo this type of broad interpretation does not belong in OSS I am sorry but your view is dying out because it’s unrealistic. Most things in life have grey areas, most things in life have legal concerns and liability attached. Even the simplest possible things, like If you sell bicycles and someone breaks their neck, they could sue and there will be grey areas as to the bicycles’s quality. If you sell food and someone gets food poisoning, same thing. The fact that software developers could make millions and never worry about law, is a giant privilege and it’s disappearing because software is no longer just for kittens and porn, it is now everywhere and it’s responsible for life and limb
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  Show me where quality of software is in this discussion.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    That’s a different criteria. The software now has to compliant. Its not always higher quality
lelanthran 3y ago
I wasn't discussing any part at all, I was explaining why the goal of the project determines the license and not the preference of the authors. If the goal is to allow others to close off the product, then one license is suitable. If the goal is to prevent others from turning it into a closed source product, then you choose the other license. When the goal is "popularity amongst closed off companies", then one license makes sense. If the goal is "popularity for the community" then the other license makes sense. There was a no value in arguing over which is easier for companies unless the goal is popularity for companies and o close off. After all, any company that simply wants to use the software without redistribution doesn't really care.

User23 3y ago

I disagree. The GPL is fundamentally an ideological document with an ideological purpose in a way that the BSD and MIT licenses are not.

humanistbot 3y ago
All software and copyright licenses are ideological documents. You don't see the ideology in BSD and MIT because it is your preferred ideology.
- User23 3y ago
  > All software and copyright licenses are ideological documents. You don't see the ideology in BSD and MIT because it is your preferred ideology. Please read what I wrote more carefully. The phrase "in a way that the BSD and MIT licenses are not" is doing important work, namely implying that there is a way in which MIT/BSD are ideological. Perhaps ideological came off as an aspersion? I certainly didn't mean it as one. It's just an observation, and frankly a pretty obvious one. I'm quite sympathetic to the Free Software movement and, at least in the first order, would be happy to live in a world where all software is copyleft. BSD/MIT is essentially reverting to the natural conditions that would obtain without statutory copyright. GPL on the other hand is actively attempting to motivate sharing and respect for user freedom in a way that is far beyond the natural state of affairs. Thus it's fairly described as ideological in a way that the former licenses are not.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    > Please read what I wrote more carefully. I think GP's reading of what you wrote is an entirely reasonable reading. Their interpretation was the same as mine before reading your follow-up. It did seem like you were saying that the GPL has ideology but BSD and MIT do not. It would have been much clearer if you had simply said something like, "The ideology behind the GPL is very different from that of the BSD or MIT licenses".
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > Please read what I wrote more carefully. I read what you wrote and I came to the same conclusion as GP. What's wrong with simply saying "BSD/MIT has a different ideology to the GPL"? Is that what you mean to say? If it is, why say this (which means something else): > BSD/MIT is essentially reverting to the natural conditions that would obtain without statutory copyright. GPL on the other hand is actively attempting to motivate sharing and respect for user freedom in a way that is far beyond the natural state of affairs. Thus it's fairly described as ideological in a way that the former licenses are not. I think you're still trying to portray one more positively than the other; you're writing a lot of words to claim "I'm not really saying that" while actually saying that.