4 ms·

> maintain technological superiority Is this ever an actual goal for most GPL projects? Usually the ones I talk to are not even interested in gaining more user

> maintain technological superiority Is this ever an actual goal for most GPL projects? Usually the ones I talk to are not even interested in gaining more users.

Expurple 1y ago
From a developer/business point of view, there's no reason to use a more restrictive GPL dependency if it's not clearly "superior" to a permissively-licensed one. The article makes a case that this will eventually push GPL out of the mainstream. No one will use GPL because they "have to" (which is the whole premise of copyleft!). It will only be used by enthusiasts
- singpolyma3 1y ago
  If the business wants to develop non open source software, then having them not use the GPLd project and thus profit off the free labour of others is a wonderful outcome.
  - Expurple 1y ago
    Your argument is in terms of "fairness". But most users don't care about fairness. They care about better software. I'll use a permissively-licensed project if it's better. Most people will use a proprietary project if it's better. The article makes a point that permissively-licenced projects have the best survival characteristics, and that's why most (quality) software will eventually be permissively-licensed, while GPL will fade into obscurity and will be used only by enthusiasts why care about fairness more than they care about the actual quality of the software that they use.
    - alpaca128 1y ago
      > But most users don't care about fairness. They care about better software. Users care about convenience and familiarity, then perhaps (perceived) functionality. People who care more about quality are a niche, not only in the software industry. Prioritizing quality means higher cost in some way, even if it's just effort to research the best choice. > Most people will use a proprietary project if it's better. Most people don't even compare available choices. Usually they don't choose based on license, but based on popularity or familiarity, based on what's the standard in the industry or within their community. If a user's been running a tool for years and it's good enough for their purposes they have no reason to look for an alternative, and the license or whether it's "better" is irrelevant. And big tech platforms love to amplify this effect with dark patterns and various forms of lock-in.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  I think those same people I mentioned would argue that being mainstream is also not a project goal, nor is utilization by corporations at all. I have to admit I think a lot of people with this sort of "death to capitalism" mindset simply won't get anywhere, because they literally don't want to. I guess that means they may eventually fade into obscurity. But the majority of project leaders I have talked to all seem to follow this mindset... they're not interested in making money, and "this is not a popularity contest." Yet when a fork inevitably emerges, they go nuclear. Reminds me of a quote I saw one time... "they don't want open source, they want to be the ONLY source."
- phkahler 1y ago
  But software developed by enthusiasts might be better than software designed by managers and hoards of beginners using AI.
  - Expurple 1y ago
    Software developed by enthusiasts that also receive patches from corporations (that can use the software thanks to a permissive licence) might be even better
axus 1y ago
I'd say no, crushing / surpassing the competition is not a goal for non-commercial software and it doesn't have to be. The thesis is that "GPL code becomes irrelevant", and they are probably right about GCC. It doesn't mean GCC goes away, just that it will become irrelevant to more people. Sun Studio and Borland C++ are even more irrelevant, not sure where that fits in the conversation. Is MS Visual Studio becoming irrelevant?
leidenfrost 1y ago
While it's not the explicit goal, it was because of technological superiority that most of us got into free software in the first place. There was a time where Linux worked great while Windows 98/XP struggled to maintain in its own feet without crashing down (yes, even XP) While there's nothing wrong with purely enthusiast projects, they never got the amount of traction practical FOSS projects get. How many users does SerenityOS have, compared to Linux? I invite people to ask themselves, do we really want a "pure hobbyist Linux OS"? How many modern feature are we willing to surrender for it?

> maintain technological superiority Is this ever an actual goal for most GPL projects? Usually the ones I talk to are not even interested in gaining more users.

Expurple 1y ago

From a developer/business point of view, there's no reason to use a more restrictive GPL dependency if it's not clearly "superior" to a permissively-licensed one. The article makes a case that this will eventually push GPL out of the mainstream. No one will use GPL because they "have to" (which is the whole premise of copyleft!). It will only be used by enthusiasts

singpolyma3 1y ago
If the business wants to develop non open source software, then having them not use the GPLd project and thus profit off the free labour of others is a wonderful outcome.
- Expurple 1y ago
  Your argument is in terms of "fairness". But most users don't care about fairness. They care about better software. I'll use a permissively-licensed project if it's better. Most people will use a proprietary project if it's better. The article makes a point that permissively-licenced projects have the best survival characteristics, and that's why most (quality) software will eventually be permissively-licensed, while GPL will fade into obscurity and will be used only by enthusiasts why care about fairness more than they care about the actual quality of the software that they use.
  - alpaca128 1y ago
    > But most users don't care about fairness. They care about better software. Users care about convenience and familiarity, then perhaps (perceived) functionality. People who care more about quality are a niche, not only in the software industry. Prioritizing quality means higher cost in some way, even if it's just effort to research the best choice. > Most people will use a proprietary project if it's better. Most people don't even compare available choices. Usually they don't choose based on license, but based on popularity or familiarity, based on what's the standard in the industry or within their community. If a user's been running a tool for years and it's good enough for their purposes they have no reason to look for an alternative, and the license or whether it's "better" is irrelevant. And big tech platforms love to amplify this effect with dark patterns and various forms of lock-in.
ranger_danger 1y ago
I think those same people I mentioned would argue that being mainstream is also not a project goal, nor is utilization by corporations at all. I have to admit I think a lot of people with this sort of "death to capitalism" mindset simply won't get anywhere, because they literally don't want to. I guess that means they may eventually fade into obscurity. But the majority of project leaders I have talked to all seem to follow this mindset... they're not interested in making money, and "this is not a popularity contest." Yet when a fork inevitably emerges, they go nuclear. Reminds me of a quote I saw one time... "they don't want open source, they want to be the ONLY source."
phkahler 1y ago
But software developed by enthusiasts might be better than software designed by managers and hoards of beginners using AI.
- Expurple 1y ago
  Software developed by enthusiasts that also receive patches from corporations (that can use the software thanks to a permissive licence) might be even better

axus 1y ago

I'd say no, crushing / surpassing the competition is not a goal for non-commercial software and it doesn't have to be. The thesis is that "GPL code becomes irrelevant", and they are probably right about GCC. It doesn't mean GCC goes away, just that it will become irrelevant to more people. Sun Studio and Borland C++ are even more irrelevant, not sure where that fits in the conversation. Is MS Visual Studio becoming irrelevant?

leidenfrost 1y ago

While it's not the explicit goal, it was because of technological superiority that most of us got into free software in the first place. There was a time where Linux worked great while Windows 98/XP struggled to maintain in its own feet without crashing down (yes, even XP) While there's nothing wrong with purely enthusiast projects, they never got the amount of traction practical FOSS projects get. How many users does SerenityOS have, compared to Linux? I invite people to ask themselves, do we really want a "pure hobbyist Linux OS"? How many modern feature are we willing to surrender for it?