3 ms·
Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance? Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.
by endisneigh 3y ago
Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance?
Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.
- ksec 3y agoBecause "Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached" implies GPL ( or CopyLeft, Non-BSD / MIT license ) have strings attached. So the parent was asking isn't Linux Open Source but with strings attached? And if so are you happy with Linux? Although I am assume what you meant was that Redis was originally a BSD / MIT, and re-licensing it to LGPL seems ideological. But I could be wrong.
- endisneigh 3y agoCopyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. If someone gave you something the correct presumption would be that you can do as you like with it, unless - and what follows are strings, like copy left. It isn’t inherently bad, but it is what it is. My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive.
- drewdevault 3y ago> Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. I have answered a similar line of questioning before. Arguing strongly for permissive licenses is arguing for a kind of passive freedom which presents as freedom from obligations. Copyleft is the sort of active freedom which presents as a guarantee of rights.
- endisneigh 3y agoI disagree - Redict is only possible because of the permissive license to begin with. A hypothetical license that said no forks allowed wouldn’t allow Redict, for instance.
- drewdevault 3y agoA hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as they use the LGPL for their fork.* * Technically you do have more options than this with the LGPL but this is a layman's explanation.
- endisneigh 3y agoI did not say it would be an open source license. My point is simply that Redict takes something more permissive and makes it restrictive, which is true.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- drewdevault 3y agoI don't think that's true. It's only true if freedom == freedom from obligation, which is a naive view of freedom. But if freedom == guarantees of rights, then Redict is more free. This is how freedoms actually work in practice: freedom of the press is guaranteed by restricting the government from censorship, workers rights are guaranteed by restricting the freedom of businesses to exploit them, etc. In practice all freedoms require someone to give something up. Even with permissive licenses, you are giving up the sole right to your IP and the sole to commercialize your software.
- endisneigh 3y agoWith all due respect I do not think that makes any sense. You’re creating this metaphor with the government, but this isn’t the government. In the end freedom is a spectrum and you are free to do more with MIT than LGPL. Even if someone forked MIT and made it closed source that does not in any way stop or restrict those who prefer the project pre-fork. Indeed, that is the very logic that has made Redict possible to begin with. This is the illustration of why MIT is maximally free. Suppose the EU said code must be closed source, and you must distribute encrypted binaries. In this hypothetical it wouldn’t be possible to use Redict at all. This is another example of why the MIT, and permissiveness in general, is superior. —- As an aside your freedom of the press example is yet another reason for permissiveness. The government isn’t permissive by default, which is why “freedom of the press” is even a thing.
- ksec 3y agoThis is off topic. I am going to assume this isn't impersonation, but Drew what happen to your old HN account? ( I had it on RSS feed and hasn't shown any update for ages I thought you left HN )
- drewdevault 3y agoI don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion. I lost the password to my old account.
- ksec 3y ago>I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion. I meant off topic as in asking you question about your account. Not the Open Source discussions which is of course perfectly valid. Sorry for the confusion.
- ksec 3y agoLet's just recap >"I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no? " Your "That's what Open Source would allow", clearly implies anything but MIT / BSD license are not Open Source. Hence why people ask about Linux, which is Open Source but copy left aka non MIT / BSD. >Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance. Your first sentence implies GPL are not open source, the relevance here is why the parent ask "do you think Linux as Open Source" or happy with it. And: >My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive. Your happiness with Linux contradict with the first "quoted" sentence to what a lot of people think you meant. Just in case, I am on the BSD / MIT camp but what you wrote create a lot of confusion.
- RUnconcerned 3y agoThe GPL has more strings attached than the LGPL.
- forgotpwd16 3y agoRedict is LGPL, a less restrictive GPL allowing linking to projects with other licenses.
- endisneigh 3y agoYes, but Redis was even less restrictive to begin with.
- benterix 3y agoYes, Linux and Git are GPL-ed, so the parent is asking if you also feel about them in the same way as about this Redis fork ("needlessly ideological", "have strings attached" etc.).