7 ms·

Big companies hate GPL No surprise here

by mouse_ 1y ago

diggan 1y ago
But they still use libraries under GPL themselves: > It gets better… Unity itself, both the Editor and the runtime (which means your shipped game) is already using LGPL dependencies! Unity is built on libraries such as Lame, libiconv, libwebsockets and websockify.js (at least). Full list of open-source Unity dependencies here. So what they hate seem to be "publishers and Unity users using GPL libraries", not using it themselves.
- HenryBemis 1y ago
  Nothing wrong to use someone else's work to make money for yourself. Plenty wrong to use someone else's work to make money for others. Oversimplification I know.. but.. right? The Ferenghi would be proud of Unity!
  - bitmasher9 1y ago
    GPL/LGPL is more about treating users fairly than not making money. It’s just that most software companies exploit their users to various degrees.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Open source is just the transfer of property and capital from well meaning developers straight into the pockets of corporations and billionaires. Developers are well advised to always apply the AGPLv3 to everything they make. It's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved, everything in between makes no sense. https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ > To the Beggar Baron, open source's value is its free donation. > You would never stand on the street and offer to buy the wallets off people who are about to donate a few dollars to you. > That'd be stupid. They're giving you their money for free. Take it and run.
    - kragen 1y ago
      Your comment makes no sense: first it attacks “open source” with derogatory language, then it strongly recommends using a certain open-source license, and then it returns to attacking “open source” with derogatory language pasted from a clueless blog post by a plonker renowned for his clueless rants.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        It makes sense when you add the fact that 99% of open source is not AGPL. Criticizing "open source" is slight hyperbole.
        kragen 1y ago
        If there's something wrong with open source software as a class, that thing would almost certainly have to be wrong with the AGPL as well, since it's a central example of the class of open source licenses, and, contrary to your comment, one of the most popular ones. If it's an exception to the generalization, you need to explain why. So it isn't "slight hyperbole". It's utter incoherence.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        If everyone in a classroom but one makes the same mistake, it's not incoherent to say the class screwed up. And they half explained why AGPL is different, with the other half not being hard to infer. It's the only one that isn't donating code to huge companies, because they can't use it on their servers without sharing back. Give a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt that they were saying something coherent. Please. (Their other later comment says they considers AGPL to be in a different category from "open source", and even if that's wrong it actually makes the argument more coherent. They're explicitly criticizing open source licenses other than AGPL.) Also 1% was just a rough guess but this survey says I was exactly right: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... If the number has changed in the last few years I'm open to updates.
      - 1y ago
- kragen 1y ago
  Those libraries are under the LGPL, not the GPL, which is a huge difference in this context.
  - diggan 1y ago
    Ah, you're very right, I misread it somehow when I first came across it... Thanks for the correction!
    - kragen 1y ago
      It's an easy mistake to make!
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    I'm assuming mouse_ was including LGPL when they said GPL because otherwise their comment has nothing to do with the article.
    - kragen 1y ago
      They are very different licenses, so their comment has nothing to do with the article, which is what I was pointing out. Including the LGPL in a comment about the GPL makes as much sense as including Switzerland in a comment about Sweden. It's an easy mistake to make if you aren't very familiar with them, but it's still a mistake, and one which leads you to nonsensical conclusions if you don't correct it.
  - zorgmonkey 1y ago
    libVLC the library is LGPL licensed, VLC the application is GPL licensed. This plugin was of course just using libVLC so it being GPL was not the issue. As you said several other libraries unity uses are also LGPL licensed.
    - kragen 1y ago
      Thank you for the explanation! If I knew that, I had forgotten.
tempfile 1y ago
It's the LGPL, not the GPL. Huge difference.
badgersnake 1y ago
This is about the LGPL, which is a very different licence. I’ve not heard of it causing any problems. Glibc is licensed in this way, everything uses that.
- kragen 1y ago
  The LGPL is a very different license, but glibc is not licensed under it, nor under the GPL.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    Someone should update this then. Isn't glibc the poster child for LGPL? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glibc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glibc
  - pmontra 1y ago
    It's got a number of different licenses for it's various components. LGPL 2.1 is among them. License file at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSES;hb=HEAD https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICEN... Source at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary
    - kragen 1y ago
      I appreciate the correction. It looks like specifically the long double libm functions (things like extended precision square root and logarithm) and the DES implementation from SSLeay are licensed under the LGPL? That seems to conflict with badgersnake's link https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license
  - badgersnake 1y ago
    That’s not what it says here: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license

Big companies hate GPL No surprise here

by mouse_ 1y ago

Big companies hate GPL No surprise here

But they still use libraries under GPL themselves: > It gets better… Unity itself, both the Editor and the runtime (which means your shipped game) is already using LGPL dependencies! Unity is built on libraries such as Lame, libiconv, libwebsockets and websockify.js (at least). Full list of open-source Unity dependencies here. So what they hate seem to be "publishers and Unity users using GPL libraries", not using it themselves.

HenryBemis 1y ago
Nothing wrong to use someone else's work to make money for yourself. Plenty wrong to use someone else's work to make money for others. Oversimplification I know.. but.. right? The Ferenghi would be proud of Unity!
- bitmasher9 1y ago
  GPL/LGPL is more about treating users fairly than not making money. It’s just that most software companies exploit their users to various degrees.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  Open source is just the transfer of property and capital from well meaning developers straight into the pockets of corporations and billionaires. Developers are well advised to always apply the AGPLv3 to everything they make. It's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved, everything in between makes no sense. https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ > To the Beggar Baron, open source's value is its free donation. > You would never stand on the street and offer to buy the wallets off people who are about to donate a few dollars to you. > That'd be stupid. They're giving you their money for free. Take it and run.
  - kragen 1y ago
    Your comment makes no sense: first it attacks “open source” with derogatory language, then it strongly recommends using a certain open-source license, and then it returns to attacking “open source” with derogatory language pasted from a clueless blog post by a plonker renowned for his clueless rants.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      It makes sense when you add the fact that 99% of open source is not AGPL. Criticizing "open source" is slight hyperbole.
      - kragen 1y ago
        If there's something wrong with open source software as a class, that thing would almost certainly have to be wrong with the AGPL as well, since it's a central example of the class of open source licenses, and, contrary to your comment, one of the most popular ones. If it's an exception to the generalization, you need to explain why. So it isn't "slight hyperbole". It's utter incoherence.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        If everyone in a classroom but one makes the same mistake, it's not incoherent to say the class screwed up. And they half explained why AGPL is different, with the other half not being hard to infer. It's the only one that isn't donating code to huge companies, because they can't use it on their servers without sharing back. Give a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt that they were saying something coherent. Please. (Their other later comment says they considers AGPL to be in a different category from "open source", and even if that's wrong it actually makes the argument more coherent. They're explicitly criticizing open source licenses other than AGPL.) Also 1% was just a rough guess but this survey says I was exactly right: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... If the number has changed in the last few years I'm open to updates.
    - 1y ago
kragen 1y ago
Those libraries are under the LGPL, not the GPL, which is a huge difference in this context.
- diggan 1y ago
  Ah, you're very right, I misread it somehow when I first came across it... Thanks for the correction!
  - kragen 1y ago
    It's an easy mistake to make!
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  I'm assuming mouse_ was including LGPL when they said GPL because otherwise their comment has nothing to do with the article.
  - kragen 1y ago
    They are very different licenses, so their comment has nothing to do with the article, which is what I was pointing out. Including the LGPL in a comment about the GPL makes as much sense as including Switzerland in a comment about Sweden. It's an easy mistake to make if you aren't very familiar with them, but it's still a mistake, and one which leads you to nonsensical conclusions if you don't correct it.
- zorgmonkey 1y ago
  libVLC the library is LGPL licensed, VLC the application is GPL licensed. This plugin was of course just using libVLC so it being GPL was not the issue. As you said several other libraries unity uses are also LGPL licensed.
  - kragen 1y ago
    Thank you for the explanation! If I knew that, I had forgotten.

tempfile 1y ago

It's the LGPL, not the GPL. Huge difference.

badgersnake 1y ago

This is about the LGPL, which is a very different licence. I’ve not heard of it causing any problems. Glibc is licensed in this way, everything uses that.

kragen 1y ago
The LGPL is a very different license, but glibc is not licensed under it, nor under the GPL.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  Someone should update this then. Isn't glibc the poster child for LGPL? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glibc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glibc
- pmontra 1y ago
  It's got a number of different licenses for it's various components. LGPL 2.1 is among them. License file at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSES;hb=HEAD https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICEN... Source at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary
  - kragen 1y ago
    I appreciate the correction. It looks like specifically the long double libm functions (things like extended precision square root and logarithm) and the DES implementation from SSLeay are licensed under the LGPL? That seems to conflict with badgersnake's link https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license
- badgersnake 1y ago
  That’s not what it says here: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license