5 ms·

(A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. That's the point! GPL family of licenses would've made a difference in this aspect for libraries (be

• nicoburns 2y ago
  > (A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. In practice, it does in many cases. Many companies have a blanket policy of avoiding these licences. But I agree that they make more sense for apps than libraries.
  • notpushkin 2y ago
    I’m wondering how’s it going with the whole dual-licensing schtik.
  • panzi 2y ago
    So they don't use Linux, bash, or GCC?
    • HideousKojima 2y ago
      Linux is GPLv2, not 3
    • KingLancelot 2y ago
      [dead]
    • vinceguidry 2y ago
      Apple doesn't ship any of these anymore.
      • koiueo 2y ago
        And guess what application developers install immediately after getting their MacBooks? The GPL licensed git. If I'm forced to use MacOS, I'm fine installing git, GNU make or whatever I want for myself. But I don't see any downsides in Apple being unable to distribute those applications together with their OS.
        • vinceguidry 2y ago
          Last time I was forced to use MacOS, I did all my work in a Linux VM. And still hated it.
        • kstrauser 2y ago
          > And guess what application developers install immediately after getting their MacBooks? The GPL licensed git. Why would they do that? I didn't, because macOS ships with version 2.39.5 as /usr/bin/git. You're free to upgrade to a newer version, of course, but the included one is recent enough for most uses.
          • koiueo 2y ago
            Does macOS include git? Oh. My bad. I concluded from the previous comment that Apple doesn't ship bash because it's GPL and hence doesn't ship anything GPL. And my point was: this is fine. Even if it was true. But as this is not the case, I see even fewer arguments against GPL licenses.
            • kstrauser 2y ago
              Apple shies away from GPLv3 code. They ship a ton of GPLv2 code, though. And as you mentioned, even if they didn't, it just takes a moment to install Homebrew and get whatever else you want. Apple doesn't stop me from installing a new Emacs.
              • vinceguidry 2y ago
                Sure, Apple won't stop you. But the defaults matter. If you're writing a shell script and you want it to run on MacOS, you need to target the ancient version it's actually shipping, or you have to tell your whole team to install a later version. If your servers are running Linux then you'll be dealing with platform inconsistencies all day long. Ask me how I know.
    • zamadatix 2y ago
      Change "use" to "distribute" (what the license cares about) and you're bang on.
      • trelane 2y ago
        This is a huge difference. The GPL and its flavor are explicitly not about use. They place zero restrictions on use. Unlike, say, just about all proprietary software. It only governs distribution and especially prevents distributors from locking their users in, and from placing restrictions on their users' use of the software.
        • chungy 2y ago
          If you count AGPLv3 as a "flavor" of GPL, then it absolutely does place restrictions on use.
          • trelane 2y ago
            Depends on your definition of "user"/"use" and "distribution" really. If the service provider is the "user," and performing actions with it on behalf of the ultimate user is "use," and not "distribution," then you are technically correct. It restricts the service provider from forcing their customers to be dependent on the them and/or restricting the end users' use of the service, like the GPL does for proprietary software the user runs on their machine. I personally disagree that running something on behalf of a user makes you the end user, but there's always the GPL if you think that.
    • layer8 2y ago
      Not in their products. Internal use is fine, but where it gets dicey from a legal point of view is when you distribute GPLv3 binaries as an integrated part of your product.
      • Tijdreiziger 2y ago
        Many vendors use Linux in their products. Think: smartphones (Android), routers, smarthome/IoT devices, other embedded devices.
        • jlokier 2y ago
          Linux in Android is GPLv2 not GPLv3. The v2-v3 difference is a big deal to some. Linux developers made an intentional decision to stick with GPLv2 and to remove the "or later version" option, so you can't include it into GPLv3 projects as you can with most other GPLv2 software. GPLv3 avoidance is why Apple ships ancient versions of Rsync, Bash and Make on its current OSes instead of the current versions, and replaced Samba with its own inferior SMB service.
    • GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
      Notably, macOS ships mainly BSD-derived userland utils and for the rare GNU software, it's GPLv2 stuff (hence zsh as the default shell, while shipping bash 3.whatever for compatibility).
    • int_19h 2y ago
      From my past experience, it goes something like this. If software is GPLv2, it's penalized relative to more permissive options when it comes to picking one. In practice it means that it's avoided unless it's "too big to avoid", or because the very nature of what you're doing requires it - this is the case for e.g. Linux and R. If software is GPLv3, it's considered radioactive and is avoided at all costs, even if it means rewriting large amounts of code from scratch.
  • consp 2y ago
    GPLv3 with interpreted code is a legal nightmare you do not want. Compiled is manageable. Then again I've seen companies publishing stuff on GitHub, when asked about the license; slapping GPLv3 on it but also forcing you to take a license with them for commercial use. Yea no, thanks. You just made a poison pill somehow even more lethal.
  • overfeed 2y ago
    This is even more damning because it means the maintainers want their MIT-licensed projects to be used by for-profit companies, but bellyache when certain big-tech companies fulfill the maintainer's vision.
• p_ing 2y ago
  Apple famously migrated away from bash (stuck on 3.2 in macOS 15) to zsh to avoid the GPLv3 'problem'.
  • krupan 2y ago
    There was zero chance of them having problems shipping bash and I'm glad you put problem in quotes.
    • shagie 2y ago
      https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt 11. Patents. A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version". A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License. Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version. This is a "some companies might not want to have to litigate that". Whether or not there would be a problem is an open question. Legal likely advised not touching GPL version 3 out of an abundance of caution. https://fsfe.org/activities/gplv3/patents-and-gplv3.en.html#Explicit-patent-grant https://fsfe.org/activities/gplv3/patents-and-gplv3.en.html#... Eben Moglen speaking at the GPLv3 launch, January 16th 2006 ... We recognise that for parties who have extensive portfolios that are extensively cross-licensed, what we are saying here for the first time creates questions concerning their cross-licenses in relation to their distribution. We recognise also that to say that you must "act to shield" is not explicit enough. We recognise that this is a very hard problem and though we have worked long at it we have no unique solution to offer you, even as a beginning for conversation. ...
• andybak 2y ago
  > (A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. It really does. It stops it being used by people who need or want to use other licences. I believe it stops it being used on iOS and (probably) Android apps. The GPL world and the permissive licence worlds are walled off from each other in significant ways for lots of reasons. Source: I maintain an app where I didn't choose and can't change the licence. And I come across code I can't touch almost every week.
  • filmgirlcw 2y ago
    > I believe it stops it being used on iOS and (probably) Android apps. The GPL world and the permissive licence worlds are walled off from each other in significant ways for lots of reasons. I fully agree that (A)GPLv3 code effectively stops code from being used by many large companies (every place I’ve worked in the last decade has a near blanket policy on refusing to use code licensed that way except in very specific and exigent circumstances), but it isn’t necessarily true that app developers can’t use (or can’t choose to license) (A)GPL code in their iOS apps, provided they abide by the terms of the license. Most developers won’t — or can’t — but the advent of dynamic linking of libraries in iOS, as well as the EU-mandated third-party app stores (which aren’t available outside the EU, but still), make the situation a lot more grey from the black and white stands the FSF attempted to take in the early 2010s. And to my knowledge there have been no legal challenges about the use of GPL code in iOS apps, so the issue is essentially unsettled. That said, in most of the cases where I have seen iOS apps use GPL code, the full app source was available (and that may or may not fulfill the redistribution requirements but I’m not a lawyer and I’m not going to cosplay as one). On Android, where full Google Play alternatives like F-Droid are available, plenty of GPLv3 apps exist, even if they aren’t available on Google Play. But yes, when it comes to incorporating GPL code into a non-GPL app, that is much more difficult in the realm of mobile than it is for other types of applications.
    • andybak 2y ago
      > but the advent of dynamic linking of libraries in iOS I'm not sure you can dynamically link to GPL in this case (LGPL maybe )? And I recall that there's also issues around signed bundles used on the various stores. But the fact that we're not sure and the fact that we're having this conversation rather proves my point. People who aren't fully in the GPL world usually have to steer clear of GPL code entirely. This goes double for hobbyists and small orgs who can't afford a legal team. > even if they aren’t available on Google Play. As much as it's regretful this is a huge issue for most people who want to make apps that other people can use.
• nu11ptr 2y ago
  I won't use GPL libraries in my code. I'm quite confident I'm not the only one. If there was no other choice, I may consider something LGPL or with the linking exception, but not until I had exhausted a search for something more permissive. To this day, I've never used GPL in any of my code, open source or closed. I've been writing code for 35 years daily.
  • Xelynega 2y ago
    > I won't use GPL libraries in my code. Why? Do you also avoid libraries with an even number of consonants in the name?
    • nu11ptr 2y ago
      Strange comment given the obvious differences in GPL vs. non-GPL regardless your personal opinion. GPL code means if I decide to distribute my project in the future, I will have to distribute my source code. That isn't a risk I'm willing to take. Some of my projects are open source, but I want to retain the option of doing what I want with my code, so I don't use GPL licensed code.
• krupan 2y ago
  All the replies to this spreading anti-GPL FUD are doing Microsoft's work for them. The idea that the GPL is "viral" and will latch onto any code it gets near is an Orwellian turn of phrase invented by Microsoft from what, 30 years ago? And it has worked because people are scared of the GPL! It's gonna get you! Don't even get close to it! Nevermind that Red Hat built a billion dollar business on top of GPL licensed code. Never mind the millions of embedded systems being sold with GPL code in them. Nevermind Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc., etc. all eating Microsoft's lunch a thousand times over using GPL code. Businesses better stay away! It's dangerous!